This is an archive of past discussions with User:TransporterMan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
{{helpme}}Copyright–silent Sites: Is there a policy or guideline or essay or something which gives (in reference to the WP:ELNEVER prohibition on linking to sites which violate copyright) guidance on how to evaluate a site which:
which uses material which obviously does not belong to the site owner, but
which is totally silent about whether or not the site has the right to use it?
(edit conflict) If you hadn't already referred to it, I would have referred to WP:ELNEVER! If the material obviously does not belong to the site owner, we can't link to it, as it is a known copyright violation. For the latter case, there is no hard and fast rule - if you believe that the work is the original work of the site owner, link to it, if not don't! If in doubt, I'd say leave it out - but of course, it may be possible to contact the website owner and get clarification from them. Realistically, each of these need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and as far as I am aware, there is no guidance on evaluating such sites.
Thank you both for replying. I'm talking about the propriety of links in an External Links section of a Wikipedia article to non-Wikipedia webpages which use material which they obviously did not create (e.g. historic photographs) but on which they do not say one way or another whether the images are public domain or whether or how the site has obtained the right to use the material. And, yes, the link I added at Sky Ride to [1] raised the question, but I'm more concerned about learning the principle than getting a ruling on that particular link. TransporterMan (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
As I say, it's really on a case-by-case basis. I'd say that that particular link would be unsuitable as it's a link to a forum - which are not generally reckoned to be reliable sources of information, as anyone (usually) can register and leave comments -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
If you read this edit on the Sky Ride talk page and saw the discussion about the Knoxville, Tennessee, transporter bridge/aerial tramway, you might be interested in knowing that it was probably in use for only 3-4 months at the most (and perhaps as little as 2) before it broke down, killed someone, and never reopened due to the resulting lawsuits, per this account (be sure to read the comments at the end of the article). TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your third opinion!
Thanks for weighing in on pleonasm! At this point, I'll let it sit. If the other user changes his mind and agrees to remove the quote, that'd be great; if not, I'll let it sit there until some other editor comes by (maybe after Aladdin Sane and I have forgotten all about this) and they can make the call.
I'll send you an e-mail. You simply got caught up in bigger picture by accident. You did nothing wrong for being lost in something you didn't and couldn't know about. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a hostile response to someone not on the 3O list offering a third opinion! That wikiproject needs to come with a warning. I'll offer to go keel over. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. As you will see from the Talk:Swansea page, there's a little controversy brewing. I didn't realise, when I entered the great Monopoly debate, that there was already a request in for a third opinion. Please could you review the situation and find a "truly independent" third party to satisfy User:Welshleprechaun? Deb (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your imput on above page. I have made suggestion which addresses the smaller issue in the wider context of the entire section/article. If you have a moment.Djflem (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment on new proposals. Having opined, the rest, I fear, is up to you and the other editors of that article. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Mysdaao has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
Hello TransporterMan,
First of all, thank you for being a good Wikipedian. This message is in response to your reply as Third Opinion on the Kundalini syndrome article. As you have pointed out, I checked the books (hard copy) and couldn't find a proper reference to the phenomenon of Kundalini syndrome in these books see proof. So all I wanted in a clarification: What happens to an article, if it is provided with wrong citations. I presume, the best that can happen is, it will be tagged with please provide citations. But what happens if there are no citations (for over 3 years)? Should't the article be deleted? Please provide me with your inputs since I am relatively new to the world of a good WIkipedian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talk • contribs) 04:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced articles can definitely be deleted, see the 5th and 6th bullet points at WP:DEL#REASON. Deletion of the article can be proposed at WP:AFD, following the instructions set out there. Please note that I am only commenting about the standards and the process; I express no opinion of any kind about how those standards or that process might apply to Kundalini Syndrome or any other specific article or discussion. Please remember to sign all your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi TRANSPORTERMAN. Thanks for your good work. Could you also take a look at the page for Kundalini Yoga, which at the bottom [[2]] also uses many of these same sources (copy-pasted?) as from the Kundalini syndrome page -- sources which are unreferenced. Therefore, can these sections which related entirely to stuff from the Kundalini syndrome page be legitimately deleted? Additionally, these un-cited cross references raise confusion and give the implication that Kundalini yoga and Kundalini syndrome are somehow directly related, even if a more thorough read will inform that they are only associated directly by name.--Fatehji (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like you volunteer a good bit of your time to keep the third opinion option maintained for all of us Wikipedians. I don't know you, but I do appreciate your efforts. If I investigated more about your history, I suspect you would more-than-deserving of a barnstar or three. For now, I offer my simple nod of appreciation. Cheers! BigK HeX (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there - you seem to have deleted my 3O request. My dispute with another editor remains. Please could you revert your change and/or explain why you deleted it? I may have missed something. Many thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This edit war by user User:Suresh.Varma.123in malayala sudra page is arising in continuance of the content dispute in nayar article. Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed, the user declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution.
The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his meatpuppetry is here
Thanks! It is certainly something I'll get into, and a really good idea... not that somebody didn't revert against my third opinion as soon as they saw it :/ SmokingNewton (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC).
You're very welcome. Don't worry about what disputants do with your opinions. Just offer them, let them know what they can do next, then fade into the sunset with a wave of your hat and a hardy, "Hi, ho, Silver, away!". If you've given a carefully–considered neutral opinion, you can take full satisfaction in knowing that you've done your best for them. Will look forward to seeing you around. All the best, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Kenilworth railway station
You have removed the {{geodata-check}} template from the Talk:Kenilworth railway station article but nothing appears to have been done to resolve the problem that was identified of Google showing the placement for this article in the incorrect place. Can you indicate what has been done to resolve the problem? Thanks. Keith D (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that the coordinates appear to be correct. I don't think that the template is going to get the correction that you need, however, since all it does is flag the need for corrected coordinates. If you want to put it back up, please feel free to do so (just remove the "tlc|" from the template in the talk page; I won't revert it) but I think that you're going to have to go somewhere else before you get a real answer. The best I can tell you is that I've noted a similar problem with the Google Earth (not Maps) links given in GeoHack for some sites in the UK in which the "Open" link will take you to the wrong place but the "w/ Meta Data" link will take you to the right place. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that there's a bug in the GeoHack tool, but I suppose that it could be in the Google software instead. If you figure it out, I'd appreciate a head's up. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)PS: And you're the second Yorkshireman that I've encountered today, see the last post above. Never met one, then met two in one day, who would have thought it? TS
TransporterMan! I be preparing presentate a petition to the SIL international, due to the registration of the prekmurian. Support the petition Marc L. Greenberg and Marko Jesenšek. Greenberg, that use the Prekmurje dialect name also take the Prekmurian. Please give me a hearing! Doremo force to the Prekmurje language name, but neither the Prekmurje, neither the Prekmurian not yet official. The all internet be full of the name prekmurian, as few hundred image, documents wear this name (see the commons!), and the Prekmurians also support the prekmurian language, prekmurian dialect names. Us have the right to chip on, what is the name of ours language. Doncsecztalk07:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You didn't need to do that, but I haven't eaten yet today so it's particularly appreciated! --~TPW14:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Premature involvement
I am concerned that you have provided a 3O opinion for the article Edge Church before any further debate was held between myself and user:Luna Santin. Before making a 3O request the issue should have been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. Since this issue had not come to a standstill your involvement was premature and may not have been helpful. Ozdaren (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
In your third opinion response, you mentioned a study by Wolf a few times. You were referring to the study by Hawk, correct? DigitalC (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion, and your clarification/correction regarding Hawk/Wolf. I have posted another comment which you might be able to comment on, to provide clarity regarding WP:OR. Thanks again. DigitalC (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm coming to you first because I was impressed with your objective 3O on the Polish 303 Fighter Squadron, and your close attention to the Wikipedia guidelines and ethos. Please could you take a look at recent edits at London Victory Parade, which have resulted in section blanking. As you'll see on User:Varsovian's Talk page I have the feeling there is a more general issue at stake, and have requested friendly administrator analysis of an apparent long term trend. Please take a look at that. Still, in my experience, you'll be the best person to deal with a 3O on this short term case of the London Victory Parade. Many thanks, Chumchum7 (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I hope I am expressing this in the correct venue. Thank you for (i think) defending the article Canvass for a Cause. I am a gay rights activist in San Diego, and the group means a lot to me. I wrote the article because the group is very important to people like me that struggle on a daily basis to be accepted for basic rights and acceptance. I understand I am fairly new to Wikipedia, only having authored a half dozen articles, but I am very committed to the work so far. I appreciate your opinion in the speedy deletion case, and would like you ask you advice as to the topic. IF you have any advice as to how I can improve the article, and prevent future attacks please send me a message. I am always looking for ways to improve.
Again thank you for your work,
Ciao,
-Tres
Xyxyboy (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello TransporterMan: Thanks for your input. Based on it, I have made a proposal, which is on the discussion page of the Erich Schumann article. I look forward to a resolution of the issue. I trust you will comment. Thanks.Bfiene (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Posting of Bfiene's Proposed Changes for Erich Schumann Page
Hello TransporterMan: Thanks for your prompt attention. I have revised the workspace page you posted for my convenience. I made the one sentence change in the introductory paragraph and replaced the Post WW II section to reflect my changes, which are this section's first paragraph. Many thanks. Let me know.Bfiene (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Erich Schumann Page Changes
TransporterMan: I have made the agreed to changes to the Erich Schumann page and removed the NPOV tag. Thanks for your prompt attention and putting up the work space page for me. Regards, Bfiene (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
We need to stop coddling Prosfilaes. He is clearly attempting to push a POV, and is not objective in his train of thought, accusing me, absurdly, of trying to "own the article" for reverting his removal of sourced content. It does not make sense that a statement that was already determined to be non-notable and not objective in any way, shape or form has been stitched back into the article while removing content that is sourced and objective to satisfy a POV-pusher. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
Good design awards
Thanks for the help. I since tried to align the article more towards Wikipedia's goals. In the end, I find that speedy deletion process quite offensive. At the very least, when it's applied, the userfy option should be automatic for 30 days, you can't count on people being behind their screens all the time... Also, it means we have to locally save any significant edit because it can be zapped instantly. Thanks again, --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek17:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Userfication is not time-limited, as far as I know, but take a look at the article incubator trial project. Still, there are a ton of new articles which have no chance of ever becoming acceptable (e.g. the classic: the "my 1972 high school rock band" pages) and are just a waste of everyone's time to do anything more than speedy delete them, and more with copyright problems or defamation issues which truly do need to go away very quickly, indeed. So my jury is out on the subject pending more study on my part, but I do like to, when I have the time, to rescue articles which I think have been inappropriately tagged and have a chance of survival. Good luck, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No that was fine. I removed it, i.e. "took it," because I'm in the process of writing an opinion in response to your request. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I hereby certify that I attempted to privately mediate the dispute between Hammersoft (talk·contribs) and BQZip01 (talk·contribs) described, in general (but not comprehensively) here and, more recently (but still not comprehensively), here and here, on the basis described here and here and agreed to by both parties and myself here and here. Though both users participated in good faith, it became apparent to me early in the process that no settlement could be reasonably expected to be achieved and in accordance with the right that I reserved when establishing the mediation process, I terminated the mediation. The failure of the mediation cannot be attributed to either user alone, and I commend both parties for being willing to try to settle their dispute. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Note about subsequent proceedings: I note that there appear to be further proceedings pending between the parties. Since I acted as a neutral in the mediation, I must retain that neutrality and refrain from participating in that or any other further or future proceeding which is originated by, for, on the behalf of, or in concert with either or both parties for the purpose of seeking to resolve or sanction (whether by warning, reprimand, blocking, banning, or other sanction) conduct of either or both parties which was a part of the mediated dispute or which is a continuation of such conduct or dispute. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
RfC for certification
Hello. You've previously were involved in attempting to resolve disputes between myself and BQZip01. If you would, please certify the basis of the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BQZip01_and_Hammersoft#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute. Please note I'm not asking you to take sides in any respect, just certify that the basis (or bases) exist for the RfC to move forward. Based on your above comments, I know you do not want to get involved. Your involvement isn't necessary (but welcome if you wish to provide it). I'm only asking that you certify there is basis (or bases) for the dispute and the need for the RfC to move forward. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You've done a couple of coordinate checks, so maybe you could help out with someting else somewaht related. There seems to be some conflicitng statistics that are cited but not really referenced regarding the size of Ellis Island and which portions are original/which are landfilled. Do you have a tip/resource for the lay person as to how this can be clarified? Much appreciated~
Djflem (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
for this. I sort of oscillate between using Twinkle because it's easy, and trying to be less bitey. Hence, I really appreciate the effort you took to leave the message for him. Cheers, {{Sonia|talk|simple}}22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Whack declined - CSD should be only for the most obvious, most blatant cases; this one has at least a tiny bit of credibility and needs to be, if anything, an AfD. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You have made your point. I am not going to edit the articles relating to the Okinawa car accidents again. Let me ask you this. Would inserting the sentence "In addition to the compulsory insurance, in 1997 US Servicemembers were required to obtain supplementary insurace." into the article be inappropriate?
Last thing, and this is my opinion. Take it for what it is worth. The entire concept of "verifiability, not truth" is entirely bullsh!t. When I hear that I think that obvious inaccurate information can be added to an article as long as there is a reference to that material. Even if it is obviously not true. For example: Someone publishes an article about the JFK assasination, references the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former Marine, and states that all Marines are trained to assasinate political figures. According to the "verifiability, not truth" concept, someone could write an article regarding this, cite the article, and no one could do anything even though it is obviously false information. In my opnion this does not make for a well written encyclopedia.
Unless you have some reliable source which says that there was mandatory insurance prior to 1997, that fact is unsourced because the SACO report just says "supplementary;" it doesn't say supplementary to what. Based on the sources you already have, you could simply say something like, "In January, 1997, the US government began requiring American citizens subject to the [[U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement|Status of Forces Agreement]] to carry additional insurance." I wouldn't be surprised, however, if with a little searching you could find a reliable source for the mandatory part.
As for verifiability vs. truth, let me defend it. The key to understanding why it works is that statements have to be verified by reliable sources. If you've not carefully read the WP:SOURCES section of WP:VERIFIABILITY and the sections that follow it, along with the reliable sources guideline, you really need to do so, because there's two components to verifiability: stuff has to be sourced (and not be original research) and the sources that are provided have to be reliable. The bar for a reliable source is pretty high, with the gold standard being sources published in peer–reviewed academic publications. Because Wikipedia is entirely volunteer–edited a lot of stuff makes it in that doesn't satisfy that standard, but stays in for awhile (or even forever) because no volunteer (a) who cares about that kind of thing, (b) has come across it, and (c) has chosen to take the time to {{fact}} or {{rs}} tag it (or one of the many other similar tags with slightly different nuances), or, much less (d) chosen to take the time to actually fix it, but that's the weakness built into the wiki form of this endeavor. Admittedly, reliability has its limitations and that's the reason we have to have policies and guidelines like WP:FRINGE. When everything is boiled down, "verifiability, not truth" is actually an exaggeration to make a point about reliability and sourcing and, to a much lesser extent, about truth. A more accurate statement would be, "generally–accepted reliably-established knowledge with reliable opposing views included, not truth." (To see some battles being waged over what is and is not a reliable source, take a look at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.) The flip side of the reliability coin is that some matters which are both important and true cannot be included in Wikipedia because those who want to put them in cannot meet Wikipedia's high reliability bar. The verifiability/reliability standard along with a few other policies (especially no original research, notability, and What Wikipedia is not) take the place, in effect, of the board of senior editors that paper encyclopedias have who make sure that the content that makes it into the books is suitable. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, another exaggeration that newcomers to Wikipedia run across is this (I wrote this as a potential essay, so "you" in it doesn't mean and isn't pointed at you, Bunns, but the universal "you"):
The often-quoted essay What "Ignore all rules" means says, twice, "You are not required to learn the rules before contributing," and the essay Understanding IAR says, "You can contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are." Both of those statements are absolutely true, so far as they go, but both are half–truths. Let me repeat them in a form which is a little more accurate:
You are not required to learn the rules before contributing (but your contributions will probably not last very long if you don't).
You can contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are (but you may feel that your edits — and your self–esteem — have been fed into a woodchipper if you do).
These snide–but–real additions are particularly true for newcomers whose first experience at Wikipedia is trying to write an article from scratch. I wouldn't wish that experience on my worst enemy. If you're going to try to learn–by–doing, then the only way to start is by editing existing articles and participating in one of the many other activities here. Oh, you'll still end up eventually reading the rules but the pain of being hammered into doing so (or if you are reading–the–rules–phobic, the pain of reading them) will be spread over a longer period and thus be gentler to your system. My recommendation? Before trying to do much here, set aside an half-hour or so, put on your reading glasses, and read the Article Wizard, Your First Article, Notability, Reliability, Verifiability, No original research, and What Wikipedia is not. If you are trying to write an article about yourself, your company, your product or website, your organization, or something else in which you have a vested interest, also read Conflict of interest. Don't be tempted to skip past sections of any of them, they're full of solid gold information. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
So please explain why Chalmers Johnson is a reliable source, and Millea Holdings Inc. is not. One is a biased liberal who uses terms such as "American Imperialism", and "American Empire". The other is a Multi-National Insurance holding company. The source I provided from Millea Holdings Inc. states Japanese Compulsory Insurance began in 1956. Bunns 1775 (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy .... Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. (Emphasis added.)
The publishers of Johnson's book, Metropolitan Books (hard cover) and Owl Books (softcover), are both imprints of Henry Holt and Company, a major and respected publishing house. However, if you'll look back through my opinion, you'll note that I did not rely on Johnson as reliable so much as I took the position that, reliable or not, his book did not support the things he was being cited as a source for. The only time I suggested that something that he said might be used to support something was when I said that he might be used as a source for the fact that Padilla did not have insurance; that's a fairly safe citation since it could be libelous if it is false and since Holt would, therefore, be likely to do fact-checking on that kind of thing for their own protection, especially if Johnson is, as you say, a "biased liberal" and his work likely to be controversial. I'm sorry, but I don't recall how Millea Holdings Inc. fit in and I don't recall evaluating it or considering it in giving my opinion. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that you used Chalmers Johnson as a reference. The articles regarding the accidents use him as a reference. It is common sense that even foriegn nationals srving in another country are subject to that countries laws (except those who are protected by diplomatic immunity, which military servicemembers and military contracters are not). If there needs to be a reference to that fact, we may be hard pressed to find that. Bunns 1775 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not old enough yet to require reading glasses...yet. Believe me, I appreciate you taking the time to debate this issue with me. I do realize that even though I have had my WP account for a few years, I am still a rookie editor. I am very passionate about certain things, and that can come off as arrogance. For that I am truly sorry, and is something that at times get the best of me. As for an appropriate compromise on these articles we can state "Millea Holdings Inc., a multi-national insurance holding company states that compulsory insurance in Japan began in 1956, however Chalmers Johnson claims that American servicemembers were not required to have insurance until 1997." or something to that effect? We can list all appropriate references.Bunns 1775 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Three points (you work faster than me, so these were prepared to respond to your next-to-last comment, above):
If you have to use common sense or logic to synthesize facts to make a point, then it's prohibited original research. That's particularly true in this case where the treaty and Status of Forces Agreement caused Japanese law to apply in some cases and not in others. For example, one would, by your logic, conclude that all US nationals who are drivers of private cars in Japan would have to have number plates if Japanese nationals have to have them, but the SOFA goes to the trouble of specifically saying that, "Privately owned vehicles of members of the United States armed forces, the civilian component, and their dependents shall carry Japanese number plates to be acquired under the same conditions as those applicable to Japanese nationals."
There are two problems with the Millea Holdings link: first, it doesn't say that US citizens subject to the Status of Forces Agreement are compelled to have the Japanese compulsory insurance, it only says that there is such a thing as compulsory insurance, and, equally deadly, it's not at all clear that jrank.org is a reliable source because it doesn't identify where it gets its information or do anything to prove that it is a "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (The Status of Forces Agreement, which you also cited doesn't say anything about insurance at all.)
As for being hard pressed to find a reliable source, as I said above, "The flip side of the reliability coin is that some matters which are both important and true cannot be included in Wikipedia because those who want to put them in cannot meet Wikipedia's high reliability bar."
As far as I can find, Chalmers Johnson does not claim that American service members were not required to have insurance until 1997. See above re the Millea Holdings link. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Clarification: At least Johnson doesn't claim it in Blowback; I haven't looked at his other work. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually nevermind the PDF. It doesn't state anything regarding SOFA personel. The State Dept websites says all vehicle owners and drivers. It doesn't specifically call out SOFA personel, but further up on the page when it addresses passports, it specifically says SOFA personel are exempt from passport requirements. Now if the State Dept. says all vehicle owners and drivers are required to carry the compulsory insurance would that not include SOFA personel? Bunns 1775 (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
First, nothing to apologize for, I've enjoyed our discussion. Second, I'm afraid that I've already seriously strained the boundaries of my personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian and to go further to help you evaluate new sources would take me over the line altogether, so I'm going to have to respectfully — and truly regretfully — decline your invitation to do that and, if I know anything about Marines, it's that you'll understand an obligation of honor. You've got the tools, however, and I don't doubt for a minute that you'll do fine with them. Go forth boldly and go get 'em! Finally, I hope you don't mind, but just for the sake of propriety I'm going to put a reference to this discussion on the article's talk page, just noting that it occurred. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand. Can I contact you for editing advice in the future? Not about this articles but questions in general. Bunns 1775 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to come in so late. I didn't see this conversation going on till now. I think the root of the misunderstanding between Bunns and myself is his false assertion that Americans in Japan (At the time of Padila and Eskridge) fall under Japanese law, which they don't. They fall under the SOFA agreement that America has with Japan. Their exclusion from Japanese law doesn't go as far as diplomatic immunity, as implied above, but they don't fall under Japanese laws. Thus American's and their insurance doesn't fall under Japanese law it falls under the SOFA agreement. One only has to look at the Padila case. When the accident occurred she was taken to the base and not tested to check if she was under the influence of alcohol. Indeed as told in the 1998 Eskridge car accident article (which will be affected by this ruling as well as the Padila article) when Eskridge hit and killed Yuki Uema with his car he was held at the US base and not arrested or turned over to the Japanese as required by Japanese law because he was protected by the SOFA agreement. SOFA personal live under a different set of laws they ARE NOT subject to that country's laws. -- Esemono (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
As for the article just to be clear as per your third opinion the only thing we can put in the article would be something like, "In January, 1997, the US government began requiring American citizens subject to the [[U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement|Status of Forces Agreement]] to carry additional insurance."? -- Esemono (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This is directed to Esemono. For the record I am done with this conversation. I was correct in my edits, I just about it the wrong way. However if you still choose to be stubborn and ignorant, thats on you. The US State Department website site states all vehicle owners and drivers are subject to the compulsory insurance in Japan. I am no longer going to argue these points. I am in the service and was stationed in Japan for 3.5 years. We were REQUIRED to have both Japanese Compulsory Insurance, and supplemental coverage on our personel vehicles, and yes we were required to have license plates. Even though we are covered by the SOFA agreement, we are still accountable to Japanese law. Just look at the 1995 Okinawan Rape Incident. US Service members serving time in JAPANESE prison, sounds like they were tried by the Japanese legal system. But how can that be? SOFA personel are not bound by Japanese law. I know more on this subject than you Esemono, so before you respond please realize I have lived in Japan as a US Service Member covered by the SOFA agreement. I owned 2 personal vehicles that were registered in Japan. I paid the annual Japanese Road Tax, and was required to obtain and maintain Japanese Compulsory Insurance and additional coverage.
In re: [5]. I suggest you look at the dispute [article history] at least 5 people are involved, so the removal of the item from 3O was perfectly appropriate.
Also, it was only brought to 3O after Nutrieg was unsatisfied with the 3 responses he got at the RS noticeboard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right and I'm probably wrong. I didn't realize that you were a Third Opinion Wikipedian, but I now see that you are. If you weren't I probably wouldn't do this, but I've self-reverted my relisting and re-removed it from the list. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. On talk you recommended Pavel Parasca for speedy deletion. (Then you retracted.) But Dalderdj has added a large number of pages that all have what appears to me to be the same lack of notability -- being a member of a commission for a study. I've requested Dalderdj explain how they feel these people meet WP:BIO. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Donald Fiedler
You're welcome. What did I do? I don't remember meeting you before. As for Donald Fiedler — yes, I'd say that being the head of a significant organisation is enough to avoid A7. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Over the course of the day today you removed a couple of speedy tags I had added and agreed with me on a couple of others. You were tutoring me even though you didn't know it. Thanks, nonetheless. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure if you remember me, but I'm one of the editors involved in the dispute on the Sub-Saharan Africa article that you recently helped mediate. There's a problem with an aggressive new WP:SPA that has just shown up on the article's talk page, yet already demonstrates a strange understanding of the "lingo" of Wikipedia (for example, 1) and how to post and edit. He's also reverting back to the other disputant's preferred version of the article (and in the process removing sources), but without making any attempt at all at a real discussion -- just personal attacks. When you find the time, could you please drop by and have a word? Regards, Soupforone (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The RfC still has a couple of weeks to run and is phrased broadly enough to cover the new editor's entry into the dispute. There's not much action on that, but it needs to be allowed to be completed. If you believe puppetry is involved, you might consider making a complaint at WP:SPI (I'm basing this comment purely on what you say above, however; I have no opinion about whether there is reason to suspect that puppetry might be involved). If the RfC proves fruitless, then you might consider reposting the dispute at the Third Opinion project, but be aware that that once there are more than two editors involved in a dispute it no longer really comes within the purview of that project and your request may be removed for that reason. Some participants in the project will, however, opine in disputes with more that two editors, so it might be worth your while to go ahead and list it. If you don't do that, you might take it to WP:MedCab. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
