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)