User talk:N5iln/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Editor review

I have been waiting at editor review for a week now. I know that isn't an extraordinarily long time considering that many users wait much longer, but since you are an editor I respect, I was wondering if you could review me. Ryan Vesey contribs 01:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Be happy to, shortly. Don't feel bad, it was over a month before someone reviewed me! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel bad that I wasn't reviewed, but I do feel bad because I just went to amend my support !vote and realized that I had never !voted previously. I was busy when I first saw your RFA and didn't comment, I later assumed I had. At least I got it in before it was finished. Ryan Vesey contribs 01:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of time...it won't close until tomorrow. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

flagging of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windchill_(software) page

Hi! Thanks for your flags on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windchill_(software) page. I was wondering if it was starting to sound too market-ey. In fact, the text I received was more so than this, and I stripped it down quite a bit. I also just made some edits to remove use of the phrase "wide-range". Obviously, I don't want to see the flag on this page, and I want the entry to read as objective as possible. Can you suggest or point out which specific areas sound more like an advertisement than others?

Thanks!

Abelniak (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC) ABelniak

The only other thing that really needs to be done is to rewrite it from its "fact sheet" appearance to a more encyclopedic, prosaic article. I have a feeling that might take some significant time and effort. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. So, it doesn't read like an advertisement anymore? There are two flags on the page (and that's the one I thought you made - perhaps I'm incorrect). -ABelniak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelniak (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't read AS promotional as it did, but it still reads to me like a corporate fact sheet...mostly a list of bullet points regarding the software. The "list" format needs to be rewritten in a prose style before the {{wikify}} tag can be removed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, N5iln. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Contested WP:CSD questions at RfA/N5iln

Your RfA has remained a close decision, but for the closing bureaucrat, I have contested asking questions about the nebulous WP:CSD issues, which gave many people the feeling to "Oppose". My text is repeated below, for discussion here, but also see any replies in this RfA/N5iln subtopic:

• WP:Requests_for_adminship/N5iln#WP:CSD has nebulous wording

The jist of my objection is that candidates should never be asked to "interpret" confused wording for would-be simple deletion polices, and then blamed because the answers do not match some people's imagined ideas about the poorly-worded policy. I am sorry you are being penalized because WP:CSD is so confusing that you need to interpret in "your own words" what the policy is trying to convey (and should have clearly stated months ago). Hopefully, a bureacrat will agree with my clear viewpoint. Anyway, my full objection is repeated, below:

22-July-2011: For Kudpung's question 5 (...in RfA...), about the difference between CSD A1 (context) and CSD A3 (content), I think the policy WP:CSD needs to be reworded to be less nebulous or rambling, and focus on specific issues. It bothers me that a candidate has to be asked to "explain" a speedy-delete policy that should have been written with simple, obvious, direct wording, which would not require a candidate to "interpret" reasons to delete a page without prior discussion. Plus, for gray-area deletion loopholes, then there should be an "official" tutorial essay that explains some rare, borderline deletion cases, rather than wonder if a candidate has "absorbed from experience" the critical nuances of "deletion-calculus" techniques. Admin-action policies should not be so nebulous or confusing that candidates would need to explain what they mean in "your own words" which are not words used to define the policies. In cases where policies are potentially confusing, then we need to have "official" tutorial essays to clarify the issues. Specifically, policy editors should rewrite (and clarify) WP:CSD criterion A3 (issues of insufficient page contents). Meanwhile, the candidate should not be penalized because his philosophical interpretion of a poorly-worded action-oriented policy does not match some imagined ideas of what that policy should say in "your own words": it is akin to requesting to explain the differences between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion as if there were a single specific "right answer" to that question. We are looking for admins, not Supreme Court Justices. RfA questions should be more specific, with obvious answers. -Wikid77 12:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I just stated this topic, for the record, so there is no need for a reply, if you wish to just let others sort out the issues. I regret that I did not notice these nebulous-wording problems, earlier, but I am continually amazed at the bizarre contents of some pages on WP; this time, bizarre wording in WP:CSD A3 which reads like a "shaggy dog story" of what contents could be deleted. Your RfA might pass, but if not, perhaps we can fix WP:CSD before your next RfA. Please do not be upset with any particular people; the system is confusing to everyone: Wikipedia is like walking through a minefield to get to your destination. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and feedback both here and at the RfA, and I agree that some of the CSD policy wording is nebulous at best. I'm not too sanguine about my RfA succeeding as I write this, but I'm also not going to curl into a fetal ball and whimper if it's closed as unsuccessful, since I still hold to the premise that adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL, misguided though some may see that approach.

set soapbox-mode ON While I'm thinking on the topic, though, there is one concern I need to give voice to, and my Talk page is the best venue for it. I'm very concerned that so many commenters on my RfA have put such a tight focus on an administrative area I stated I would only approach with caution. A more pessimistic candidate might be the recipient of that level of scrutiny in an unfamiliar area and be led to agree with those who believe that the admin corps is a "good ol' boys club" that limits membership to those who use the right keyboard brand or the right deodorant. Since I do still hold to the WP:NOBIGDEAL concept, the only tangible effect of my not being granted the mop will be that I don't get to do anything about backlogs on noticeboards like UAA. I'll still be a WP:GNOME, still hunt down and revert vandalism as I come across it, and so forth. set soapbox-mode OFF --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Some responses to your RfA noted fears about prior admins who went astray, so that might be why you are being judged by perhaps severe standards. There is still the chance a closing bureaucrat will value the diplomacy and well-centered comments you have made, as indicators of how you can be trusted. Meanwhile, I am still stunned how people objected to my action-oriented "competency test" (to create an article or state why not) but did not object to open-ended philosophical musings about when to delete files or other should-have-been-documented policy decisions. It is like grilling the upstairs maid, "Explain the ergonomic differences between feather duster and lint roller specifications" (wtf?) rather than show a specific table top and ask how the maid would clean it. These RfA tests have become arcane philosophical-essay dialogues, rather than focusing on the specific work to be done. Now I better understand why some standardized tests have become mostly multiple-choice-quiz format, rather than being all foggy essay questions. It is inherently unfair to be judged by hypothetical topics which would never be allowed in a court of law. -Wikid77 18:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Losotaint 2

Thanks for opening a SPI on User:Losotaint 2, and thanks also for your comments at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, here are a few remarks which may be helpful to you in similar cases in the future. Generally speaking, if an anonymous IP vandal has edited for just a short time and then not edited for a while, an AIV report is likely to be considered stale, as it is very likely that the user is no longer active on the same IP address, and any block would only affect other users. Personally, I don't apply that principal if there has been continuing vandalism of the same kind (suggesting the same person) over a prolonged period, which suggests that there is just a short break in a continuing pattern, but there are differences of opinion among different admins as to how far the principal applies. What is quite clear, though, is that the same principal does not apply to a registered user. If a user has been vandalising for a significant amount of time, the fact that there has been a break in the vandalism for a few hours does not in any way reduce the validity of an AIV report. Since we know it is one user, blocking is not going to affect other innocent users, and there is no reason not to block. Thus "Report appears stale; user hasn't edited in over five hours" is not relevant.

None of this is meant to be criticism of what you did: it is rather in the spirit of "thanks for your good work, and here is a bit of advice on how to do even better." JamesBWatson (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The "stale" part of my comment was intended to "cover the bases", and was written a bit prior to my SPI filing...and certainly well before I saw how many socks the user was going through, and before I knew there was a completely separate username as a sockmaster (thank you for revealing that, Amalthea). That said, I'll avoid such a comment on a registered username in future. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning the sockpuppet off my talk page. He seems to be obsessed with harassing Favonian, Acroterion, and myself. :/ Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It was rather obvious, wasn't it? No worries. Chalk it up to another successful use of Huggle. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA

As your RfA reaches its close, I would like to lament with you that it did not succeed. Wikipedia would have been better served accepting your willingness to serve as an admin. I would like to commend you on your conduct throughout the process and advise you that your value has increased in my sight. My support extends beyond your RfA, and my appreciation for your contributions abound. With esteemed regards, My76Strat (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry. As I told Wikid77, an unsuccessful RfA isn't going to make me curl into a fetal ball and whimper for hours on end. I'll take it as a learning experience, work on correcting the perceived deficiencies, and give it another go sometime in the future. There's still work to be done that I can do. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I was just popping by to say commiserations as well. I think you'd have made a great admin. Please keep up the good work that you do on Wikipedia - especially all the anti-vandalism stuff and that at WP:UAA! I hope you try again in a few months time--5 albert square (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the slowest-closing RfA I've ever seen. Doesn't mean much, as I haven't been here long, but still... --Σ ^talk_contribs 05:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think Lear's Fool's RfA closed just as slowly. Not that anyone keeps records on such things, and if they do, they're probably doing so out of boredom...in which case I know of a handful of backlogs they should be looking at! :-) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Understood

Just make sure no one else makes subsequent comments on the same nomination page to which you're not asking me to provide my replies. Otherwise, if people will continue to write underneath my previous statements of opposition, to make my comments just as readily available, I should be able to have such comments of mine posted rigth below theirs without having to resort to post on another page that would make my comments obscure. Diligent007 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe a better option would be for you to just WP:LETITGO. There's obvious bad blood between the two of you, and everyone who's read Qwyrxian's RfA is now aware of it. It serves absolutely no purpose to escalate things further, other than the very real potential of hoisting yourself on your own petard. Consider this some friendly, but firm, advice from someone who gets tired of drama very quickly. Someone else might not be so friendly. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Prescott Anthony

Thank you for monitoriong the situation, I am not at liberty at this juncture to substantiate what is still at the level of Ms. Anthony being an alledged resident of Prescott. My edits were of the prior statements of her as a child killer and murderer , charges of which she was fouynd not guilty in a court of law. My concern is that such descripotions incite to violence so I was finessing those postings by other people. Since I am new to wikipedia. If I see those kind of inflammatory listings once again, how to I correct them, or can i just contact you as you appear to be more experienced at editing. Is there a way that you can monitor that page, Some of the prior usernames appear to be 76.103.153.241 65.106.72.162 Andros 1337 96.57.103.174 If there is a way that you could also remove the posts as they come up such as the ones that I tried to make more accurate out of concern for her safety, I would appreciate it. please let me know how to monitor to such end if you would rather not. (≈≈≈≈) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsharris239 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My concern is not regarding Ms. Anthony or her whereabouts; it focuses on maintaining the integrity and viability of Wikipedia, which is one of the core principles upon which Wikipedia operates. It's quite simple: there's no reliable, verifiable, neutral source that can definitively state where she currently resides, so any statement regarding her whereabouts is unsuitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Should you come across such a statement that remains unsupported by such reliable, verifiable, neutral sources, feel free to be bold and remove it. If other editors insist on including unsupported material, bring the matter to the attention of an administrator by reporting the matter at WP:ANI. Regards, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks N5lin

Good to know, I'll try to be more careful to cite sources in future! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteyL0rr (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your offer to volunteer as an English wikipedia administrator…

…unfortunately did not achieve a consensus to allow you access to the admin toolkit. Hopefully, you can view the opposition reasons in the context in which they (or most of them) were offered, as constructive criticism, and use them to guide you as to which areas of this project you should focus on, and become more experienced in, so that your services will be welcomed next time you choose to offer them. Thank you for volunteering! -- Avi (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, you will return in another three months. (And remember to look at WP:CSD when asked a question on it; that's what I did with WP:NFCC and WP:NFC when asked image questions!) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No doubt you'll have better luck next time, Alan. Keep up the good work, expand into article writing, and get the details right. Your attitude is certainly proper for an administrator. All the best, Drmies (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll keep the commentary in mind, as well as what I saw on the Discussion page (yes, I did read it, but chose not to participate). While I'm still somewhat mystified at the number of "Oppose" positions regarding an area I'd stated that I would only enter with caution, it did indicate to me a need for expansion of my knowledge base to include that area. There still isn't much for a non-admin to do in the CSD arena other than nominate, so the only way to test that knowledge base is as was shown by the questions posed. We'll see how things go. Cheers, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You've done a lot of good work. I think you would make a good admin; but even without the mop, I hope you stick around and do more good work, despite the pain of running the gauntlet! bobrayner (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Alan, I'd just like to second all the best wishes above; your attitude has been great throughout the process, and I look forward to welcoming you to the "got it on the second try" club in a few months. 28bytes (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to echo what many above have said. You have done great work at Wikipedia and I need to thank you for your many hours of volunteering. Many of us know that you easily qualify for the bit and I was disheartened by the last minute inrush of opposes. I think it speaks very highly of your character as to how you handled yourself. You're a great asset to the project and I'm fiarly certain you don't hear this often enough, so I will say it. Your participation here is highly valued by many of us regulars and we appreciate all that you've done in making Wikipedia a better place. Thanks for your contributions and help. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 21:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I see quite a few editors have come here to give you a pep talk. I only wanted to say that I very regretfully had to oppose as I feel you are trustworthy but only lack in experience which I found very difficult to swallow considering you're rocking 30k edits. I'd almost guarantee my strong support in 2+ months if you showed improvement/participation in AfD and CSD and showed clear understanding of CSD. I recommend taking a read over WP:WIHSD, I think it'll give you a head start.--v/r - TP 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Alan, I supported your candidacy and still wish that you had passed, but I wanted to give you a probable explanation for the opposition to your candidacy on the basis of experience. When you get the tools, you get all of the tools. So while you may pledge to avoid deleting CSDs until you improve your knowledge, once you get the bit there's nothing stopping you from doing it anyway. I think that's what makes people skittish. I made similar pledges at my RfA (to stay away from CSD and AfD until I had more experience) even though most people suggested that I actually could be trusted to do them anyway. (And I did take my time before starting to delete CSDs, and I still have only closed a couple of AfDs that weren't procedural closes.) In my experience, most people live up to their RfA pledges. But if a person doesn't, and causes trouble, it's such a pain to remove the bit, so folks try to be careful. I hope this experience gives you a good grasp on what areas you should improve on, and I'm sure your next bid will do much better (after all, this was only your first try and it was still a close call, the closing admin called it "no consensus"). -- Atama頭 17:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sage advice. Apparently I worded my introductory paragraph poorly; rather than stating I would approach CSD "only with caution", I should have stated I would avoid it altogether until I felt confident in my knowledge of the applicable policies. However, as Mark Twain is supposed to have stated, the difference between "the right word" and "almost the right word" is the difference between "fire" and "firefly". Still, examining the CSD criteria and how they're applied can't hurt. We'll see what transpires in a couple of months. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{spa}}? Seriously?

Heap big smoke, no fire.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Based on your apparent unwillingness and/or inability to assume good faith and respond to the presented arguments, I'd appreciate it if you disengaged from the discussion. You are not currently contributing constructively to it. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You know I can't do that. And you know why. Res ipsa loquitur. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC) If you can't assume good faith and respond to the presented arguments, your contributions to the discussion serve to derail it rather than advance it. There is no justification for that. Either repond to my arguments and cut the assumptions of bad faith, or leave it alone. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I'm doing neither, and you know it, whether you're willing to admit it or not. If there's consensus to add the material, and there are reliable, verifiable, neutral sources that can be cited to support it, well and good. Otherwise, no go. Anything beyond that is bells and whistles. Now please leave my talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You are ignoring the sources JonFlaune assembled. You keep quoting policy that disagrees with you. Also, I resent your attempts at wikilawyering yourself out of the situation by citing common law. You know exactly what I'm talking about when I say that you are don't currently appear to be making effort to contribute constructively to the discussion. This is not "your" talk page, but I'll leave it alone now since you asked me so nicely. However, I must ask you to stop your attempts at derailing the discussion. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You couldn't be bothered to heed my warning. I don't have time or energy to take the action that is apparently being asked for. Instead, I'm enacting a unilateral voluntary interaction ban between myself and your IP, effective as of the timestamp of this comment. Gute nacht, mein Herr. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Kind Words on my RFA

Thanks for the word to the wise -- the process was actually quite enlightening! I learned a lot from all the comments and will keep in mind how much more there is to Wikipedia. ch (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	That you have managed to survive a week of RfA at around the 70% mark is impressive enough, but coming out the other side as helpful as ever and offering decent advice to other failed candidates particularly impresses me. I hearby award you the barnstar of resilience! WormTT · (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

An RfA overcame CSD debates

Finally, hope for the future. As you know, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian was approved while truly discounting the recent squabbles over WP:CSD (this time A7), so that is proof the tide is changing. It's too bad "you missed the boat" on that tide, but perhaps you will become famous as the last RfA penalized by blaming a candidate for CSD problems. In your next RfA, I suggest you try to avoid any more of those "in-your-own-words" traps and perhaps only quote directly from complex policies, especially when controversial. I think most people would respect direct quotes of policies (which they have not read), because the intent should be to show you've read the policy (and guideline) pages, rather than debating an ideological war about splitting hairs of policy details. There are so many details in RfA questions, that I can imagine why the focus had shifted from simple "competency test" questions, into trick questions about policy-wonk nuances. Plus, previous admins might resent when RfA's become more task-oriented, rather than the prior survived-the-debates ordeal. Anyway, better luck next time. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the WP:CANVASSING issues on that RfA overshadowed the questions regarding CSD#A7, so I'm not sure that was a true or accurate assessment of that aspect of adminship; had Diligent007 played by the rules (and I'm stating he didn't based on his being blocked for his actions), the CSD question might have received more focus, and therefore weight, when other editors cast their !votes. Still, there are lessons to be learned regarding what other users see as "routine" admin tasks, no matter what a given candidate states will be their major area of concentration. The New Admin School really should have some sort of functionality built into it that prevents any user from being nominated at RfA until they've completed reading the associated articles! Cheers, Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD closing

Whilst your non-admin close was spot on, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquarian Age was not closed correctly and thus didn't disappear from the list. You need to put the closing template round the whole AfD (usually I fix these by reverting and closing myself - you can see the difference between the two here). Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Not sure how I did that...I've done it right before. Thanks for the hot-fix. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your recent tolerance of my goof on holeshots. I thought I understood it... If you're at all interested, have a look at this, this, & this. Also, you'd be more than welcome in a potential new WikiProject under constrtuction here.

TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: SSG India

Hello N5iln. I am just letting you know that I deleted SSG India, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. As a sidenote, and as I commented to Reaper Eternal, I found it amusing that after being speedy-deleted, the page was re-created with the original CSD notice intact. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was certainly helpful of the page creator... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing vandalism on Death of Caylee Anthony Article.

There were four incidents of vandalism - just today. Many on other days. Needs to be semi-protected I think but do not know how to accomplish that request. Thanks again. Mugginsx (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a quick look at the article and see what edits have been made today. If it's looking bad I'll request the protection. It's a high-profile article, and will probably remain so for quite some time, so that makes it a prime target for vandalism and POV-pushing. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Mugginsx (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My Username

can I keep it ? --POVbrigand (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unless an administrator advises you to change it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Macedonian Struggle

Alan, I did not mean that I'd take legal action against Kostja and other people who censor me. Rather, I meant reporting them to the administrators. Regarding the essence of my edits, I provided detailed references with page numbers and excerpts. By all means, I don't want to involve you in the whole issue or tell you which side to support, but my edits had the intention of accurately explaining what the Macedonian Struggle was about. AngBent (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

Understood, and thanks for clarifying that. There have been a couple of touchy situations at ANI regarding legal threats lately. As to the article itself, it looks like everyone has their own preferred source, and at least a couple of those sources, while academic and reliable on their face, are at odds with each other. When that happens, everybody's right...and everybody's wrong. That's why I recommended dispute resolution. Get more eyes on the issue, and the odds get better that someone else who's familiar with the topic will pop up (it happened with another matter I was involved in, at Safiye Sultan...very serendipitous, that). Best of fortunes, Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Message

I would prefer if you leave information intact and avoid ignorant edits. Thanks. Tom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdccyber (talk •contribs) 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to expand on exactly how any edit I have made lately is "ignorant" or damages information? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about the Desktop CYBER page I have created and was in the process of updating after somebody stuffed it up (Yworo and Smackbot). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdccyber (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding maintenance templates to an article that needs maintenance isn't "stuffing it up". It's calling attention to the needed maintenance. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Who decides that it "needs maintenance"? Are you a Wikipedia employee or do you just decide for yourself? Also is there some better way of communicating than editing this page? Thanks Tom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdccyber (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You are apparently unfamiliar with the collaborative and volunteer nature of Wikipedia. You may wish to read WP:5P. Also, you may be interested in this noticeboard discussion. Regards, Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I find your assertions increasingly annoying. Who are you? I have chosen the user name cdccyber simply because I have been involved with the company CDC and their product the CDC CYBER for over 2 decades. The company has been out of business since about 1992, so "conflict of interest" is rubbish. My involvement with CDC ended 1988. The username cdccyber is just me. Also collaboration does not mean ignorant tinkering with other peoples work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdccyber (talk • contribs) 16:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You're using the word "ignorant" quite a bit. Are you sure it means what you think it means? Also, please note that I was NOT the editor who originally added the maintenance templates, nor was I the editor that opened the discussion at WP:COIN. I do, however, agree with the messages those maintenance templates convey, and I'm still waiting to hear exactly why you feel having those maintenance templates in place damages information. However, given the existence of the previously-mentioned discussion at WP:COIN, perhaps such a response should be made there, since that's a public noticeboard, instead of here, a single editor's Talk page. Finally, I'd ask that you end your comments on a given Talk or Discussion page with four tildes, in order to add your signature to the comments and generate a timestamp for continuity. Regards, Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Tor nodes

Just seen your comment at AN/I regarding yet another spate of incoming attacks at Reaper Eternal. What is a "Tor node"? Just curious. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Cliffs Notes™ answer: a system of anonymizing proxy servers, originally intended to circumvent the Great Firewall of China. See Tor (anonymity network) and WP:PROXY. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Email

Email sent. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

...and replied to. :-) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for responding so helpfully to my request for help with recent vandalism to my homepage. It is really appreciated and your advice is gratefully received. Elland1 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. It behooves the entire community to step on roaches like that one. As far as the possibility of sockpuppetry, if you're certain of the activity, you should report it at WP:SPI. I'll keep your User page on my watchlist for a bit, just to see if the problem recurs. Cheers, Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're a top man! Thanks again :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elland1 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead 2

Sorry for talking to you directly when you send me a message, I am new and well frankly don't know how to leave a message at my own talk page.

You deleted an addition I made to the Left 4 Dead 2 article because you believed it to carry a non-neutral point of view. I can understand where you're coming from, but I'd like to point out that not mentioning community dissatisfaction can also hardly be called neutral. I tried to write the addition as neutral as possible, but if you deemed it insufficient I would appreciate if you would aid in improving it rather than deleting the addition completely.

Sincerely yours,

NgocLai (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never played it, so I'm unfamiliar with any community issues regarding the game. My first reading of your material seemed both overly detailed and biased, which is why I reverted it. If there are reliable, verifiable sources that outline the dissatisfaction you describe, feel free to re-add it with citations to those sources. I'd also suggest asking for a third opinion to look your contribution over, either before or after you insert it into the article, and evaluate it for tone and neutrality. Regards, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

178.233.60.203, and outing

Perhaps you're right regarding Wikipedia policy and possible revealing of a user's identity. However, when the majority of that user's edits are reckless advocacy for the shooting death of another person, the right to anonymity is brought into question. Additionally, the identity of the IP's account is readily seen in the Whois report. Cheers, 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That, unfortunately, is not a call for an editor to make, registered or not. For that matter, it's not even a call for an administrator or bureaucrat to make. I didn't see a person's name when I ran the WHOIS report; all I saw was the name of the ISP, so that's what I based the template report on. It's possible the WHOIS tool I use filtered that out of the report, but I have to say it's also unlikely. At any rate, I hold to WP:OUTING as a bright line. Unless the user him- or herself has openly stated their legal name on their User or User Talk page, it's not to be revealed. I've already emailed for Oversight to examine the matter, so I'm going to consider my involvement concluded. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Editor review 2

So, since I commented about my editor review I have received 2 reviews by other editors. I was wondering if you were still interested in doing another review of me. It would be great if you did but I wouldn't mind if you didn't. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's in process. I've gotten mired in a couple of other necessary real-world tasks, so I'm running a bit further behind on it than I'd prefer. I hate when life interferes with my Internet... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 13 August 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill Wall

The COI tags you added to Bill Wall were removed by an anon user. I think they should be there. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the IP is Billwall2, whose edits caused me to add the tag. I'll look the article over again and re-tag it if it looks like it's necessary. One thing certain, there's way too much detail in the lead paragraph, so that'll be flagged. As to the rest, we'll see what happens. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

bill wall page

I added some info and links on my bio page, then tried to revert back to the original after getting your tag. Could you revert it back to the original, take of the maintenance tag, and I won't touch it. Bill Wall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwall2 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've examined the article again and removed certain maintenance tags. However, problems remain in the article that indicate a need for the remaining tags to stay in place. I've also started a discussion on the article Discussion page and asked for outside commentary. I'd recommend you join in that discussion as a means of developing the article. Regards, Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

West Paterson/Woodland Park

Not really sure yet how this all works, but your edit taking out "Central Park" was fair, if somewhat humorless (what is neutral, after all?)

What on earth does "signing your posts by typing four tildes (Skipnyc1 (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC))" really mean? I'm an old unix programmer, and the tilde there generally refers to the user's account (i.e. ~skip means skip's account).

Skipnyc1 (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)skip

See WP:TILDE. The Wikimedia software looks for a series of four tildes in a row to attach your signature to a comment on a Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wim Crusio

I reverted the article to an earlier version, check the history if you would to see what happened, looks like a rogue bot or perhaps vandal. If you think speedy's justified by all means restore the tag. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The SwiftBot1956 account was created just a little over an hour ago. I'm doubting it's an actual bot; it looks more like the article subject trying to build or improve their CV (which is currently masquerading as an article). I'm not sure a CSD would fly on A7 alone, but with the additions the "bot" made, it definitely trips over G11 as an autobiography. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent work at WP:UAA, I award you the original barnstar. Keep up the good work, Alan, it's much appreciated. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Abuse response

I have accepted your case but normally, you fill the information. Thanks for the case, I wish everyone would submit cases. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 19:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thankee. It's the first time I've ever filed a case at that level, so there's a definite learning curve involved. It's also the first time I can remember seeing an IP hit the five-block point, although it's also the first time I've actually looked to see if they'd hit it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk about killing off a dry spell...I just opened a second case. Be careful what you wish for! Oh, and please let me know if I filled in everything properly this time. If this is going to become part of my "normal" activities on Wiki, I'd like to make sure I'm getting it right, so no one has to come in behind me and do it over. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm ready. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 20:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent AN/I

Hello Alan. You recently said that "editing others' User pages is generally frowned upon quite severely". This worried me a little. I had always thought that it was fine. Jimbo's own talk page says: "You may edit this page! Really, you can! Please feel free to do so. Make an edit! Make several edits! After all, that's what Wikipedia is all about." After reading that, I had always assumed that good faith edits were allowed to any page, in any space. After all, most user pages will never be changed under that premise: only vandals usually edit user pages. But now you've got me thinking. What made you say that "editing others' User pages is generally frowned upon quite severely"? Was it just something you assumed to be true, or is there a policy on it? After all, if it were frowned upon, then why don't we all have protected user pages? — Fly by Night (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's been an ongoing argument on various noticeboards since I started on Wikipedia. WP:UP addresses the matter thus: "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)." (Emphasis mine.) My understanding of this is that the only place other users should be doing anything is on one's User Talk page; one's User page is intended as what I call a "brag page", where things like biographical snippets, Userboxen and Barnstars are kept. Now, with all that said, I stand behind you in removing !awards that a user hasn't earned. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Abuse Response Filing

Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 205.196.190.199. We wanted to let you know that the case has been opened and is currently under investigation.

Its appreciated! ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 10:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

• Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
• Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
• Watching out for the class as a whole
• Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Pod suggestion

Hi Alan! I'm in the process of trying to find Online Ambassadors to support each of the classes for this coming term, and I want to recommend one to you: Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/American Political Systems (Marc Thomas). If you're up for it, please check out the Memorandum of Understanding (linked above) which sketches the expectations for Online Ambassadors this term, and then you can sign on to class and get in touch with the professor.

If there's another class you'd rather support (or if you're up for joining more than one pod), feel free! We're shooting for at least about 2 Online Ambassadors for each class.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

For this edit. It has given me a new perspective on you and I now have the impression that you really are ready for the mop and makes me want to support you at your next RFA. You clearly refute the other editor's aggressive and unrealistic comments and demonstrate your knowledge of Wikipedia policies. I couldn't have said those words in that edit better if I tried. v/r - TP 13:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

AGT

Wikipedia isn't a place for spoiler alerts. Please see WP:SPOILER and the discussion AGT page editors had on this last year page As one editor said last year, "If I lived on the west coast of the USA, and I wanted to experience "in the moment" the events of the show, I think the last thing I would do is go to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and read about the show before it was aired. West coasters are used to this. Don't treat them like idiots." Gamer9832 (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is the place people go to settle bar bets. (I wish I could remember where I heard that first.) An argument can be made that posting the show's results as they happen fouls both WP:OR and WP:NOTNEWS. But since there's only a half hour to go before the show DOES air on the west coast, there isn't enough time to discuss the matter in the detail it would require. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It violates WP:SPOILER, once again. AGT isn't news, it's a show, and we are entitled to put up facts when we want to. I can even give you a source for the results, if you want that (in response to WP:OR). This is a season-specific page, so this info pertains to the season, and we have the right to put it on.I also saw your edits before in the history of the page. You're not entitled to block editors from freely editing the page. And you're overstepping your bounds as an admin if you are one. I'm a Californian myself, and I will tell you that it won't stop me from watching the show, and you definitely don't have to be "considerate" about us. On behalf of all West Coasters: we're smart enough to know that if we wanted that moment of suspense before the results, we definitely wouldn't come here. Gamer9832 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of part of my earlier comment, so I'll repeat myself. It's too late to argue the matter. The show's over, there's a winner, and everyone else is moving on. I think it best if both of us do the same. I'll agree that you won't change your stance, and you'll likely agree that I won't change mine. Let's leave it at that. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador applications

There are a few good applications for ambassador pending approval. In particular I was hoping maybe you could comment on this one. -- My76Strat (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

I would suggest that making blind comments, can be disconcerting when an editor is being unfairly commented upon. Examples would include this were the the editor is linked to for personal attacks, and most recently were their conduct is raised here, and their actions are questioned here. Editors should be aware of all the relevant information when commenting in such cases, and extra care should be taken in the absence of supporting diff's. I do hope you agree. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 21:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as I hope you agree that communication must run both ways; otherwise, there IS no communication, and hence, no consensus. Of course, you could decide not to agree. But that would leave my comment as accurate, and allow editing to proceed on the article without your input. This is called "getting people to talk", and since you took the time to write something on my Talk page, it appears to be working. Therefore, my job is done. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately not working as well as you could hope, rather i've had to deal with an ad hominem response on the articles talk page that still avoided the simple solution to this content dispute - hard cold evidence that states what Domer48 claims they are. Without the evidence i continually request, and the lacking responses along with ad hominem comments, Domer48's behaviour violates a condition of WP:Disruptive editing as they are preventing the improvement of Wikipedia. How? By their failure to engage in a proper discussion and provide the simple solution to the whole thing. It is not a personal attack to say they are being disruptive when they are being disruptive and to call them up for disruptive editing.

The entirety of this is also an attempt at trying to undermine me, to which i responded to each point, and may well be a case of boomeranging for Domer48. Also note that whilst Domer48 cites this as them questioning my actions, they are actually performing ad hominem and not focusing on providing the simple evidence required of them to settle the whole thing. I fully show his response for what it is (ad hominem) with my response.

I'm sorry if this has dragged onto your talkpage. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Any time I speak my piece on WP:ANI, it opens the door for someone to use my Talk page as a sort of "private aside". Mine aren't the only eyes on the situation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Political positions

Hello. I thought you might be interested to contribute to a thread I started at Wikipedia:NPOVN#Political_positions_of... Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you did not respond due to potential canvassing concerns, I posted at the talk page of all five people who commented under Wikipedia:NPOVN#Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul. I am arguing that all Political positions of... articles violate NPOV through a non-neutral article title which does not encourage multiple viewpoints. I am suggesting we move all of these articles to Politics of... articles. This would end the current problem all these articles have: they encourage editors to find only political positions of the said politician (one viewpoint) even if no notable person or organization has commented on that position. If you have a recommendation about how I can move this conversation along, (am I not in the right venue?) please assist. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm tied up on an outside project right now, and it may be a bit before I can look this over. Thanks for the heads-up, though. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Update on courses and ambassador needs

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors

Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:

• Sociology of Poverty
• Architectural Design
• Introduction to Educational Psychology
• Intro to Mass Communication
• Psychology Seminar
• Theories of the State
• Advanced Media Studies

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

• Housing and Social Policy
• Anthropology, Wikipedia, and the Media
• History & Systems
• Horror Cinema
• Digital Media... just bits in a box
• Composition I
• Telecommunications Management
• Training Systems
• Stigma: Culture, Deviance, Identity
• Art and Terrorism
• Political Violence and Insurgency

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)