User talk:N5iln

Welcome! Hello, N5iln, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Thanks for the cookie

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 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}}!

Yummmmm!

A3RO (mailbox) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'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}}!

Thanks for the cookie!

*Pepperpiggle*^*Sign!* 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}}!

LOL. I didn't know I could eat it!

B.s.n.R.N. 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}}!

Yummy

PhilKnight has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'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}}!

Thanks

N419BH 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}}!

PROD of Cannabis smoking etiquette

I removed your PROD tag from Cannabis smoking etiquette as it passed AfD as "keep" only a few days ago. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

psychology

I have a degree in psychology and my education has taught me that psychology is about the psyche (the self). I will do what I can to find an online link to support this. But to say that my edits are not constructive comes from a position of closed mindedness and a lack of ability to understand the subject you are talking about. I do not mean to undermine you. But I don't think that it is helpful to tell people that psychology is about society. When it is NOT. Sociology is about society (and futher more the two interact well together when studying social psychology). But please take another look at the information available, before you jump to conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username3000a (talk • contribs) 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:V. Material added to an article requires support by reference to reliable, verifiable sources. I reverted your edits for lack of such referencing, and because your edits gave the appearance of departing from academically-accepted definitions of terms. Also, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is intended to be written for persons who are not experts in a particular field. If it's your intent to show that psychology is a means of control, you need to support that assertion through references, so that a layperson can examine sources should they desire more in-depth information than what an encyclopedic article would provide. Thank you. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Safiye Sultan

On Safiye Sultan's talk, I've just read your answer. But when I click the link, it gives an error. I think it's a fake link. Who wrote it? I'd like to know. If it won't be revealed, I'll continue to claim that someone wants to make a smear campaign on Safiye Sultan. It's normal, because she's an Ottoman Sultan and the Ottoman aren't at all liked, are they? Thanks for your future answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.226.117 (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which link you're referring to; the only two links in my answer on the Safiye Sultan Talk page go to Wikipedia policies. As to the so-called "smear" campaign, the material on Esperanza Malchi was edited by another user to remove the assertion made by the British consul's office that she and Safiye Sultan may have been lovers, simply because that assertion could not be supported by reference to verifiable, reliable sources. For that matter, the claim itself was called into question because of the doubtful reliability of the source from which it came, which was another reason to remove the claim from Malchi's article. I just reviewed both articles, and I currently see no contentious material. If I'm missing something questionable, please bring it to my attention. Thank you. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote "Safiye Sultan's page" but it should've been "Esperanza Malchi's page". The link written in there is broken. So I mean I'm not yet convinced. And I don't think I'm still going to be. Because that "reliable" source can claim that they were lovers, but how could they be sure? What shows this relationship? There are many valide sultans who were close to the kiras, but their relationships don't have to be love. Of course there could be lesbian or gay relationships between sultans but how could you be sure? For instance I heard that Sultan Suleyman and Pargali Ibrahim were lovers, or Hürrem Sultan and Ibrahim were etc. Someone may gossip about these relationships and show some sources. Sources don't have to be real any time. History is something like this. Hope I managed to tell you about my thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.226.117 (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not finding any broken links, either on Safiye Sultan or Esperanza Malchi. And the information on Malchi appears to be correct as it stands; she was Safiye's kira, and no other relationship is currently stated, either explicitly or implicitly. I think we can call this good as it stands, unless someone else comes along and makes some sort of change to one article or the other. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

The other sources in the section Interpretation of the Quran and Hadith say "there is nothing to worry about in the islamic scriptures." That is also a point.79.209.90.152 (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This really needs to stay on the article's Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Skincubed

Trying to create a company page under cosmetics companies, following format as several other cosmetics companies that are listed but it keeps getting flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.252.203 (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:GNG. There's no information as to why that particular company is sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article. If information from reliable, verifiable sources is included that supports notability, there won't be any problems with the article remaining. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

SkinCubed

Hi Alan, Let's see featured on E news, several magazines and the industry's newspaper WWD. I happen to glance at companies listed under cosmetics and found Rachel K which btw has no where near the notoriety, presence or market penetration. How a company like that is relevant and Skincubed is not, I cannot understand. I was in the middle of figuring out how to correctly format the article and it was flagged before I was even done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepe69 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Since an admin deleted the article, you'll need to coordinate with that admin to get it reinstated. Once that's done, use the {{underconstruction}} tag so other editors can see the page is still being put together. You might also consider setting it up in your userspace first so you can flesh it out to the point where it would meet WP:GNG prior to "going live" with it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Huggle Frenzy

Please be more careful in the future when reverting due to "unexplained removal of content",[1] that the source supports the content it purports to support, especially for BLP-sensitive content. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That can be tricky, considering how many personalities and celebrities have "come out". It would almost require familiarity with every notable on-air personality to know who is and who isn't. That said, if the IP had simply commented the change in the Edit Summary, I wouldn't have thought twice about passing it by. Let's call this a "learning experience". --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for help

Hello, I am an unregistered editor, and I attempted to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&action=history where I see you have edited recently, but 'Nasnema' just now apparently vandalised the page, and reverted my edits, falsely claiming that I did not cite my sources; I did cite my sources.

I am a religious person who believes in God, and I do not wish to cause unnecessary pain or trouble for 'Nasnema,' but also, I must defend the truth and what is right: It would appear that this user is valdalising this page, & falsely claiming that I am --which makes a good case that I should not join Wikipedia. Could you please look into it? Thank you71.101.40.113 (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what being a religious person may have to do with the topic at hand, but I do see that Nasnema incorrectly removed your material. If there are questions regarding the veracity of a cited source or the accuracy of the material being cited, they should be discussed on the article's Talk page so that consensus may be reached. I'll keep an eye on the article for a while. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my religious comments, on my honour, I only wanted to assure this user, Nasema, that I was religious so that he/she would realise that I was not trying to cause him/her trouble --you know, show the love of God and be a good neighbour. Regarding the talk page, you are right, I should have talked it over, but as the edits looked minor, I thought that it was 'OK' to edit them and talk only if there was disagreement. But I am open to talking on this matter, because I can make mistakes, and if so, the mistakes should be fixed -- but of course, if I make 1 or 2 mistakes, the whole things should not be deleted. Thank you for your help! -Regards,71.101.40.113 (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

((in case you did not see my reply on the unregistered page, here it is -along with a copy & paste of your post to me.))

You have requested the same assistance regarding editing the article College tuition in the United States from at least eight different editors. This contravenes WP:CANVASSING, and may be seen as disruptive editing by some. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

you are right -- I was indeed 'canvassing' -but I am new to all this, and did not mean to cause trouble -- I only wanted to make sure it got prompt attention.

But I did not want to put all my eggs in 1 basket & hope that it would be seen -- so I had to diversity -- LOL -sorry.

Maybe I should have found the vandalism page & just posted there one request for help --would that have been the right step?

Lastly: I owe you all restitution as well as an apology: What should I do to correct my misstep? Remove the posts on those editors' pages?71.101.40.113 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Faraday's paradox, etc.

Sir:

How do we get into a useful information exchange? Sorry, it is not obvious to me. I've posted three corrections to the Faraday paradox page, which you have simply deleted. I'd like to discuss with you why the factual information that I provided is accurate and a significant contribution to understanding this long standing paradox with all the nonsense being bandied about concerning it.

If you actually read and compared what I wrote to what was previously there, the significance is fairly obvious.

Take the last correction. The existing comment dismisses the return circuit of the loop and asserts that attention should be focused only on what happens in the disk. This error is exactly the source of the confusion regarding the measured results. It is essential to examine the relation between the magnetic field and every part of the loop in order to understand what is happening in each segment of the loop for each of the described experiments.

While presenting the historical facts is both interesting and valuable, we really should not limit ourselves by ignoring what has been learned since Faraday made his original observations and drew his conclusions from very limited knowledge.

Today, there is no paradox and nothing that is not obvious in the operation of a homopolar generator using the Lorentz force law and circuit analysis. Today, it is also obvious that the idea of moving magnets but a stationary magnetic field is absurd. What Faraday failed to recognize is that with a moving disk and stationary magnet the voltage was generated in the moving disk. But with the combination of a moving disk and moving magnet, no voltage was generated in the disk; rather, a voltage of opposite polarity was generated in the return wire that ran parallel to the moving disk.

We can clarify with a step by step explanation, including why there is a discrepancy between the prediction of Faraday's law and the measured presence of an output voltage, or Wikipedia can include a contemptuous dismissal of Faraday's flux analysis, while ignoring its subtly ignoring the question originally raised.

Regards,

71.136.243.138 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC) James Harris

First off, none of the edits you made provided citations to reliable, verifiable sources, which is a basic requirement of any addition to a Wikipedia article, just as it would be to an academic journal. Second, your edits treated the main article space like the Discussion page, especially regarding the tone of the material you added and the fact that you signed your edits. Note that I am not contesting the information you attempted to insert. It is the manner of its insertion that is in question. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Need more help

Sorry to bother you again, N5iln, but I need more help as described in Talk:College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Proposed_New_Section. Two other editors changed things, but one of them was a 'bot' and it was a mistake, and we got that resolved. However, the 2nd editor, 72Dino, made two other changes -- one of them looked OK, but the 2nd one, regarding Wikipedia:EL#What_to_link looked incorrect -- I'm not saying that 72Dino was wrong -- he may be right -- the links may not belong there (I think they do), but let's say he's right: Even if the 'External Links' don't belong there, they certainly belong on SOME related College Tuition page --and by the way, looking at the registration dates and such of these pages, it looks certain that ALL of them are 'permanent' sources of information, likely to be around for a long time. Could you please take a look? It is important to offer full resources to the readers on the subject at hand. Thank you!71.100.187.222 (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. Looking over the article and its Discussion page, it appears to me that progress is being made on the article, consensus has been achieved on several points, and there aren't any significant disputes. I think my best action here is to just step back and let development continue. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:72.214.83.196

Regarding your query at ANI, yes, I believe it to be Genius(4th Power) or TomPhan. This guy is a persistent pain and appears often wherever I post. Your assistance in keeping him at bay would be greatly appreciated. Buffs (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so all I can do is watch for any telltale signs and escalate accordingly. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks, but...

he's been given this warning three times already... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm I just now noticed that. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:User simple-0

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 Template talk:User simple-0. 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) 05:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Brother

i am sorry i have a brother that is a little craxy so if you foregive me please send a messeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackisloveing (talk • contribs) 17:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:BRO. I'm all for assuming good faith, but the pattern that's developing isn't a good one. Think long and hard before continuing...or allowing him near your computer when you're logged in. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sig

For my part, I think it's silly, but if the community gets its collective panties in a bunch over it, what can you do. I suggest that you change your name officially though, since everyone knows you as Alan and I think that changing your sig back will also be confusing and the half solution you have now is just unfortunate. (If you want to change it, you just have to do it before you reach 50k edits.) --Danger (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought. For my part, if the single biggest argument against me having a mop is how my name appears when I key four tildes, I think I'm doing pretty darn good. But that's just my opinion, and a couple of other !voters have raised other points which may need addressing. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

RfA Question 10

At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/N5iln, I have posted a Question 10, for you to answer in the next few days. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Friendly heads-up

Hi,

While I think your responses during the RfA have been largely sound, there is a tendency for editors to take a negative feeling from candidates who seem too engaged with replying to opposition during the process: it gives the impression that the user feels the need to justify every edit, rather than accepting criticism for what it is. (The closest analogy I can make to RfA, sad as it is, is the likes of American Idol, where potential starlets who get into arguments with the judges usually find themselves being shown the door). I hope you pass and have supported; I think the majority of the oppose comments are weak, invalid or plainly bogus. meatball:DefendEachOther is good reading for situations like this: an excellent indicator that you've got sufficient support to pass is where you don't need to defend yourself because other editors will do it for you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments and advice. I'm doing my best to not follow in the poorly-placed footsteps of My76Strat and question each and every "Oppose" !vote. The comments and questions I do leave on opposes aren't meant to challenge the positions of those !voting, but to seek clarification on areas where they see a need for improvement. It's a fine and blurry line, and sometimes that line can't be seen at all, so I have to take my best guess as to where it is. As Goethe said (and I've quoted...often...), "Man errs, so long as he is striving." --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Friesland

Thanks for the revert. I am in the process of fixing the issue at the template level. Clearly the total area cannot be the same as the land area if there is also water area. The template was recently changed to using the "area_land" for both the "area_land" and "area_total" fields, but I just figured out there is a "total_type" parameter in {{Infobox settlement}}, so I will fix it there. Thanks! 207.194.238.3 (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I just now saw that the template had been changed. Carry on. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Name change

Thanks for letting me know about my user name! Scyphozoa bot (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. And welcome aboard. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA answers

Hi. The format of the RFA is not especially conducive to providing feedback to answers, but I would like to provide some feedback to your answer to my question #12[2]. First off, these were both very difficult questions and #12 in particular is one where there is no right answer and no matter what you do in that situation, it's possible that someone is going to be upset. My concern comes from this sentence in your reply: "Further, a bright line issue such as 3RR is specifically discussed in WP:INVOLVED, both as to precedent and a lack of limitation on an admin's action in performing purely administrative acts." WP:INVOLVED gives vandalism as the example of a bright line — 3RR is different because it is an area of admin discretion. When encountering a 3RR violation, an admin might choose to block both editors, block only one of them, protect the article, warn one or both users, or take some other action, and if choosing to block one or both editors, an admin uses discretion in determining the length of the block. So even though a user who violates 3RR has crossed a bright line, blocking them for doing so is not necessarily the correct decision. Also, an editor who appears to violate 3RR may contend that their edits were one of the exceptions (BLP, etc) and may feel (correctly or incorrectly) that a completely neutral admin would be more likely to see it their way. So it's very important (as you say, "Wikipedia holds admins to a higher standard of conduct, so erring on the side of caution hurts nothing") to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Now, all that said, obviously this question was presuming that the block had already happened, what do you do from there, and taking it to ANI and asking for review is a fine answer. Anyway, I hope this rambling feedback helps in some way. --B (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It does indeed. Should this RfA fail, as it appears destined to at this point, I can make use of any such feedback to improve my skills and experience base. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment at WP:AIV

Just to let you know (as I suspect you are on the other side of the pond) - geolocate does not work in the UK :-) One can only trace back to the ISP's location.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Another good idea ruined by reality. :-) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the anonymity - it makes me smile when I see a web page trying to show me "nearby" attractions. If I remember correctly think it has a lot to do with BT (who supply all the actual phone lines) not wanting to breach the Data Protection Act. There is also no such thing as a reverse phone book in the UK - you cannot find an address from a phone number.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 11:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Here in the United States, you can do a reverse IP lookup. However, I've checked my home IP and it puts me in the wrong state, so accuracy leaves much to be desired.... (University IP just shows the university I go to.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So "trust, but verify." It still makes a good cross-check, and the geolocation tool sometimes comes up with registration info that the WHOIS doesn't. I'm waiting for the time when we all have to learn how to negotiate IPv6 lookups. (NOT!) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:53, 21 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.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

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 talk:Edit warring. 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) 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

{{spa}}? Seriously?

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)