User talk:N5iln/Archive 7

Doubt
Greetings. A couple of days ago, I was reading an article about a Portuguese victory in the Battle of Montijo, against the Spanish Army, and, in the "outcome" section, I saw: "Portuguese phyrric victory", in other words, a victory where the victor suffers heavy losses. So, I was thinking: If we can put "phyrric victory", how come can't we put "crushing victory" in an article where the difference between the losses suffered by the victor and by the defeated is huge? For example, in the Battle of the Lines of Elvas, the Portuguese suffered less than 10 times the casualties Spanish did, and yet, the Portuguese where outnumbered. Therefore, I think it's fair to write "crushing victory" in this case, since we can write "phyrric victory". I thank you for your attention. Prtgl93--Prtgl93 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did you see that description? Was it in an article from Wikipedia, or from an outside source? The term "crushing" is subjective, and could denote bias, which is why I removed it...however, if it's been used in a referenced source, it's proper for use in the article, provided the source IS referenced, and preferably quoted verbatim.
 * I get nervous any time I see such adjectives added to the terms "victory" or "defeat", simply because those terms often do come into use due to some bias of an editor. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "phyrric victory" is in the article about the Battle of Montijo, here, in Wikipedia. I assure you, I'm not doing it because I'm a patriotic guy, it's a question of justice: If in some articles, "phyrric" is added to "victory", why can't "crushing" or any other term can be added too? It's my opinion that, either we remove "phyrric victory" from all articles, and we don't add "crushing", or we leave "phyrric" and add it. I'm not trying to be anoying, i'm just saying that it is unfair, because if adding something to the terms "victory" or "defeat" is due to some bias of an editor, then "phyrric" is too. I say it one again: I'm discussing this because I want to edit articles too, and I just want to know what I should and shouldn't write. Prtgl93--Prtgl93 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not doubting you, and I do see the term in the article. As far as what may or may not constitute bias on the part of an editor, take a look at WP:NPOV for guidelines.  I'll leave it to you to decide what to put in the article...but I would suggest you add some of your commentary to me to the article's Discussion page so other editors know what questions have already been asked. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thank you for your time. Prtgl93--Prtgl93 (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted personal attack
Hello N5iln! I reverted an anons personal attack on your talk page and warrned them. I thought I would just drop you a line and tell you (even tho it will show in the history). Take care!-- Navy Blue84  13:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight?
What are you talking about? Kindzmarauli (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no obvious or stated reason for including information on the "Sign Guy" in an article about Chicago City Hall. His occasional presence and protests in front of City Hall are only minimally notable in the context of the article.  --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He's only been protesting in front of it for 3-4 years. Kindzmarauli (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I note that he has his own article, too. Barring consensus to the contrary, information about him should go there. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

VH1 You're Cut Off
I added a reference. I added the VH1 blog link because it has the all the show recaps for You're Cut Off. Sweetfornow (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan to me! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Received and responded. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC Teeninvestor
Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not good faith but Thank You
These were NOT good faith edits by the previous user, but I THANK YOU for edit. She has already been warned by other editors as well as Wiki administrators for vandalizing the page. The Generation X page was previously put on protection for such changes. Carlson's book is already mentioned on the Generation Y article page and does not belong on the Generation X page. Mr. Carlson is the only source for 1983 as the end date and does not belong in the introduction of the Gen X article. Such was already discussed several times already and a consensus already reached. Educatedlady has repeatedly said she will continue to make changes despite being warned. One source that is not widely accepted does NOT merit a drastic change.

Sorry, I wanted to apologize for the wording of my post and not signing my post. I had some computer trouble. I thank you for reverting the recent changes to the Generation X page. Your contribution is much appreciated. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hani Hanjour
Those views that he was a hijacker have been debunked in over 20 videos and hundreds of conflicting documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhoagland (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, for starters. Such claims as you made in your edit require support from reliable, verifiable sources, and those sources need to be properly cited. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Trivia IP
They are fun, although it is a different IP, I bet it is all the same dude coming back and doing it again.--IGeMiNix (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If he really, really wants a rangeblock, I'm sure there's an Admin who can oblige. Meanwhile, there's one less IPvandal with access for a while. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in 2 days though, I bet it is going to be a different IP. They have been around, for awhile, those pages are probably my most busy watched pages when it comes to vandalism.--IGeMiNix (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose everyone has to have a hobby... *koff koff* --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, I guess so.--IGeMiNix (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick to judge
Did you even look to see what I did to get warned? User:PM800 constantly attacks users so I trout slapped him/her. That was not cause for warnings so I deleted them because they were unjust. 74.89.58.36 (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already posted my position to your User Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking over the edits. I maybe annoying with my trout slaps but it's not vandalism. It was unjust of him/her to say that I did vandalize, and when I bought that to his/her attention he warned me again. I got annoyed and again warned him/her. In retaliation (s)he posted me on WP:AIV, so i posted him/her to make sure the full side of the story is out there. 74.89.58.36 (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is...see WP:NPA. That's where you might be seen as flying the "block me" flag in this instance. At any rate, other than my comments here and on your User Talk page, I'm fairly well out of it now; it's in the hands of whatever Admin elects to review the matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now thats ironic. When pointing out someone constantly violates WP:NPA, I get accused of violating it. 74.89.58.36 (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 74.89.58.36, we've got it covered. Theres no need to continue to trout/warn that user. Netalarm talk 03:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to make it clear. It might have not been necessary (which why I didn't fight to keep it) but it wasn't vandalism. He only posted me on WP:AIV because he doesn't like me. Btw i reposted the warnings on my page to show I mean no vandalism. 74.89.58.36 (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear, you can remove the warnings, it is assumed you acknowledge them, it is only if you continue to disrupt after the warnings is when it is a problem.--IGeMiNix (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I know you weren't vandalizing. Would you like to create an account and stay on Wikipedia longer? Netalarm talk 03:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From the Page History, it seems the IP does have an account. The question is why wasn't he on his account anyways.--IGeMiNix (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Huggle
When are you going to use Huggle again?  Wayne Olajuwon  chat   20:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point, as soon as they figure out the text rendering issues that seem to be running wild. It may be as simple as needing to be recompiled...but I don't have the means to do so on my little machine. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Unjustified reverts
Hello, I will add these changes again on Georges Clemenceau's page. Let me sum this up : I add 3 historically adequate and free of rights photos of Clemenceau (which you can find on the french version of  the page) on the page, and create a link to Hubert Lyautey. Would you be polite enough to explain your reverts? I admit I forgot to summarize the changes when editing the paper, but next time you would  be nice to at least consult me before reverting with this authoritarian  manner. User : guigui169 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guigui169 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that you failed to provide an adequate edit summary. Further, you failed to sign your post on this Talk page, and inserted your comments at the top of the page, rather than at the bottom, which is both customary and expected. As to your edits, had you provided an adequate edit summary instead of simply altering the material, I would have known to verify the source of the images, especially if you had referenced their source. Finally, as to the "authoritarian" manner of the message you were left, a very similar message is sent to any editor who makes a similarly questionable change to an article.
 * In future, I strongly recommend you provide an adequate edit summary for all article edits you make. Doing so will eliminate such exchanges as this, streamline the editing process, and demonstrate a knowledge of proper sourcing and citing for material included in a Wikipedia article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Article request
Hi Alan, I hope you can help. I am trying to raise an article about an Independant UK film challenge that was responded to by nearly 500 UK guerilla filmakers. I am not sure why it has been deleted, as I consider it, (along with the other filmakers) as importnat enough to be included on wiki. These films get screened at Leiceste Square, London, are judged by among others the Saatchi Brothers and are often featured in UK magazines. Can we find some common ground to lift whatever embargio is in place please? Many Thanks, Paul Wayman 07834029950, pauljpwayman@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Wayman (talk • contribs) 22:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What was the article that was created, and what was the rationale given for its deletion? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alan, Thanks for your speedy response. It was a small contribution to "Guerilla Filmaking", with a view to expand into the 48 Hour Oddball Challenge. I have been given some pointers by Sion, but I am a little out of my depth at the moment. The plan was to link to another page, but I think I took too long as I couldn't remember how to make a link. Bearing in mind there are other independant fimakers on wiki, with lesser of a profile...(Eliot Grove being one), I couldn't see why Johnnie Oddbals work in this field was not important enough. I am working with Sion to try to put something together. Many Thanks, Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Wayman (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hungary
A Hungarian who has been accepted to ELTE for 2 different professions greets you. Point of Neutrality requires the change on the Hungary main page, it is in any history books, what economic policy was made in that age. 86.101.192.38 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is so, please cite reliable, verifiable sources to support the material you intend to include in the article.Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I cited it, and also here: Demands of Hungarian Revolutionaries of 1956 7-10 points. I hope it is a satisfying source. 86.101.192.38 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be complete and verifiable. Thank you. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Huggle use
Hello, N5iln. Could you please explain how this edit was a reversion of vandalism? Thanks,  Skomorokh   23:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, my reversion was made in error. Simple, but ill-timed, slip of the mouse. Apologies. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, but it's not me who has an apology coming. Cheers,  Skomorokh   23:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RE speedy deletion recommendation of Steamy Raimon page
Hi, N5iln. I listed Steamy Raimon being published in 2 National Lampoon books being sold on Amazon. One is also sold on the shelves in bookstores. They are compilation books (with several other contributors), published by National Lampoon. The links are submitted as proof of publication and evidence that he has no controlling influence of them. Is there anything I need to do, like submit links to all the magazines he has been published in? There are many of those and I tried to keep my article as short as possible. Thanks for the help. TTpregel (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Review WP:NOTE and WP:RS. It probably won't be necessary to link to each individual issue, but linking to a sampling of the magazines he's been published in would help establish notability. My concern was the apparent lack of non-self-published material referenced by the article; showing publication in mass-market magazines would qualify as secondary sourcing. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mounir saada
I can't find it on the French Wikipedia, but I've tagged it sd bio anyway. Peridon (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It could probably have been tagged using, except for the incorrect language in en-namespace. Oh well, it's not the first time such a thing has happened and it won't be the last. It just happened to be next. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Foreign-language entries
A note on what to do with foreign-language entries: db-foreign is rather misleadingly-named - it is only intended for cases where the article is a copy of one existing on a foreign-language WP, the point being that if it has been cut-and-pasted from another WP it needs to be deleted, because if it is kept and translated the attribution to the original authors gets lost. The warning notice for the author refers him to WP:Translation which explains the proper way to bring an article across.

In most cases, the article has been input by someone who doesn't know that any other WPs exist, or sometimes has had the article deleted from another WP. The template to use is notenglish or, if you can identify the language, or whatever, which generates links to the other Wikipedia and to Google Translate. (Google Translate is good at identifying languages, given a couple of sentences).

Often a look at the Google translation is enough to show that the article needs tagging db-person or db-band or similar, but if it's not an obvious speedy the "notenglish" template generates a message to post at WP:PNT, the list of Pages Needing Translation. There someone who knows the language may take it up for translation or do something else with it; if it sits there for two weeks without being translated, it gets deleted.

There is a useful list at WP:PNT/T of messages, many of them bilingual like contrib-ru1, to give the author of a foreign-language article, to say "English here, please, the Foo-ian Wikipedia is there."

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome info. I'll make a few notes so I know which templates to sub in for such situations. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring question
Recalling your experience at WP:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor ..., please examine a short thread at Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China. Can you suggest alternate ways I might have been more effective in this very limited dispute? In this small thread, can you suggest lessons learned the hard way which I could have drawn from this editing experience? --Tenmei (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm on the road right now and don't really have a lot of leisure time for delving and analyzing. I'll take a look at it when I get back. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, dude, it'll never happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.130.253 (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I believe you may be right. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry dude, won't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8qblog (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just go easy. There are reasons other editors are leaving you messages regarding your edits; please take them as constructive criticism. None of it is meant as a slam against the airline, and absolutely none of it is personal. Maintaining the integrity and improving the quality of Wikipedia is the primary goal. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments
Please do NOT delete my comments from talk pages, as you did here. :( Guinness2702 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Easy, mate. I was posting a comment and got an edit conflict. All I thought I did was back out and re-attempt my post. I didn't know it deleted your comment. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Huggle2
You should try Huggle2.  WAYNE  SLAM 22:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Up and running (as time permits). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

10 years
OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.201.152 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverting my edits to Daeg Faerch = false positive
I would like to report a false positive. My edits  to Daeg Faerch are not "factual errors," as you claim. The movie was filmed from October to November 2009 with the intention of an April 22, 2010 release .That never happened. They had to tweak the visual effects, and the film has yet to be released as of January 2011. Not even Daeg and Mickey Faerch (his mother) know when the film will be released, if ever. Unless you have concrete proof that Sebastian (starring Daeg Faerch and Meadow Williams) has been released (in any manner) prior to January 1, 2011, my edits are not factual errors. Thank you. PF4Eva (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Jan 29th
Abbas the Knowledge Seeker: Thank you Alan, but I've been around. Where do I address you? The edits were not biased, they are factual corrections of incorrect reporting on the pages of wikipedia. Right now, this page has Husain bin Ali's name written without a reference. How can this be, when the Battle of Karbala is all about Husain bin Ali? U do not know about it, I do. So my bringing my information to this page has to be valued, and not shunned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzaz (talk • contribs) 10:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue arises with the statement you included, "popularly known as the Massacre of Karbala". I admit to very little knowledge or study of the history of the area or of the Battle of Karbala itself, but the phrase "popularly known" is questionable under WP:V and WP:RS. To include such a weighted phrase in an encyclopedic article, you would need to provide a citation that references a reliable, verifiable source that demonstrates that the name "Massacre of Karbala" is how the battle is "popularly known". Without such a citation or reference, the phrase appears biased, which is why I elected to revert the edit that included it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ian Thorpe
I have added a reliable citation to the edit I made lately.
 * Thank you. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the link to WP:CVU. I was having some trouble finding a page with a good summary of how to report someone. This offers a little more clear guidance on what to do. Thanks! Udeezy (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I saw someone having a bit of difficulty and helped where I could. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable
Alan, I'm a veteran Wiki editor with over 25,000 edits and several years under my hat. The IP is removing and altering sourced information without discussion - and is edit-warring to push these new edits in. I am absolutely appalled that I am being given the same treatment as some random Balkans nationalist IP roving around destroying articles. Please note WP:DTR. I hope and suppose your simplistic approach here stems from not having sufficiently looked into the matter. This is not a question of "collaboration", the edits are plain nonsense. Please semi-protect the article, restore the sourced version, and warn the IP to discuss further opposed, controversial changes in sourced text. Am I too naive if I expect admin assistance in preventing damage to what little remains of sourced text in the Balkans articles? Or should I expect to be "blocked without further notice" when I revert random IP vandalism. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an Admin. I can't protect pages. However, I did also warn the IP editor regarding WP:3RR, just as I did you. I looked at the page diffs and saw the material being changed, and I don't know enough about the topic to contribute anything to the article itself, so it's going to be up to editors better versed in the subject to reach consensus about the article. Anything beyond this point will need discussion at WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I've just noticed you're not an admin. Well Alan I hope you'll take a moment to review a user's homepage before indiscriminately templating people, esp. if they've done a lot more work around here. I may have gotten offended sooner than I might've, but I should certainly suppose I will not get "blocked without further notice" for reverting random Balkans IP vandalism. I've already requested semi-protection in hopes of not troubling the folks at WP:ANI unnecessarily with this. WP:DON'T TEMPLATE THE REGULARS, regards :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to be bold and disagree with WP:DTR here. Edit wars require at least two "combatants". To warn one and not equally warn the other is irresponsible at best. Like you, I've been around the project for some time, but if someone drops a template on me, I look for what I did to earn that template, rather than seeking out the editor that dropped it on me and asking them not to. To me, it's a learning opportunity, not an insult. Perhaps I'm an unusual editor in that regard, but I'd like to think otherwise. In any case, my role in this issue has ended, unless an Admin wants to ask me about my commentary. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I am quite aware that "it takes two to edit-war". That quite profoundly silly line essentially equates all sides in any dispute. The latter is NEVER a correct course of action, but in some cases it is profoundly and disturbingly wrong. For example, in the case where one side is a standard issue Balkans nationalist IP rewriting and removing long-standing sourced text hard-established by consensus after months of discussion, and the other a "senior editor" who's activity on Wiki includes routinely trying to prevent IP damage to Balkans articles. The same editor who has, btw, already stopped reverting and has requested protection quite a while before you posted your template, and who has not breached WP:3RR in the first place. I am not offended by the template itself of course, who would be, but by your nonchalant  and simplistic approach, not to mention your completely unhelpful involvement on WP:RfP.


 * P.S. The point of WP:DTR is not whether one "agrees" with people taking offence at being templated after 5 years on Wiki, but that you should assume they might out of common courtesy. --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is most often the correct answer. And that's as far as this needs to go. I've already stated my withdrawal from the matter, and it's a complete withdrawal. There's no sense in turning this issue into a battleground when I'm walking away. 'The matter is done.' Dong ma? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So I'm now "some random Balkans nationalist" for being from nowhere near Balkans and not nationalist, but for doing cleanup work on a Wikipedia article. Awesome. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You obviously read at least part of the above exchange. Let me spell out the pertinent part that you apparently missed. I'm. Done. With. This. If you are going to insist on continuing your dispute, I'm going to insist you take it elsewhere. If you're going to try to continue it HERE, I'll move it to WP:ANI myself. End of discussion. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Not all IP addresses are equal
I have User talk:76.117.247.55 on my watchlist, so I noticed your addition of there. Since this editor has made many thousands of contributions over five years, you might like to reconsider the revert and/or the templated warning. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit in question removed material from an article with only a very short and generic edit summary, and the result of that edit was to give the article section an overtone of bias and undue emphasis. While I'm all for cleaning up text for both brevity and clarity, taking too much out can do more harm than good. Kudos for boldness, but it was a bit overdone, IMO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for taking another look at it. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Being human, I'm far from perfect myself. Goethe said "Man errs, so long as he is striving", and we're all proof of that. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Marie-Laure Sauty de Chalon
Would you please re-consider your nomination and comments? Bearian (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point it's probably best to let the AfD run its course. It doesn't look like there's consensus to delete. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I need your help please
Hello I am ehsan (ehsan1388).I have recently uploaded a file with all required permission and copyright info but unfortunately two of users started a war on this and accused me of lying and vandalism.I would like to ask you to come to my talk page and read through the messages and help please to put an end on it.I complained to wikimedia via email but with no response.I believe that the image i have uploaded should be restored.I am ready to help in anyway possible.

I truly appreciate your help Thank you --Ehsan1388 (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:CANVAS. Since the matter has already been brought up at WP:ANI, I won't be able to assist in this. Sorry. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for you too.I intended well.I am asking for help not canvasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsan1388 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!


JerseyGirlMedia 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 cookies, 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}}!

hehe ;) JerseyGirlMedia (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador
Hi Alan! Thanks for signing the Online Ambassador interest list. If you have any questions about the role, please let me know. If you want to apply, you can do so here: Online Ambassadors/Apply. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got the application finished, but the transclusion isn't bringing my username across properly. Did I screw up the formatting somewhere that I'm not seeing? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Malingering
"Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Malingering, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability." What you need me to verify that there are still countries in the world without a health care system? What's so wrong with my edit, is the fact that in order to affect the health care system with malingering there needs to be a health care system there in the first place false??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The REAL Teol (talk • contribs) 12:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, yes. See WP:RS and WP:V. "Everybody knows" is a weasel-worded argument which is logically unsupportable. For inclusion in any encyclopedic article, material must be supported by facts, not just opinions or "common knowledge". --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookies brother
thanks buddy, its people like you who help me learn about the world much love xoxoxoxoxoox Kallistimusic (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We were all new once. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Student Health House
FYI I just deleted it as a copyvio, thanks for the AFD note which put me onto it :) Sorry if I am teaching you to suck eggs but don't be shy of sticking copyvio onto such examples, even if they are at AFD. My understanding is that copyvio is pretty much the one thing that trumps all of our processes. --Errant (chat!) 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looked like a copyvio when I saw the text, so I commented on the AfD, and then went hunting. I spotted the Blogspot entry just after you deleted the article, apparently. Timing is everything! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great minds and all that. :) --Errant (chat!) 00:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Ambassador Program
Hi N5iln!

Congratulations! Your application to join the Wikipedia Ambassador Program as an Online Ambassador has been accepted.

First off, two apologies. I'm sorry it took so long to accept your application; I've been traveling and have been almost totally off-wiki for about two weeks. And I apologize for the following info-dump. If this feels overwhelming and you're wondering how to get started or are wondering what's going on, please contact me.

If you haven't already done so, take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines: Online_Ambassadors/Guidelines

The "mentorship process" section lays out approximately what will be expected of you as a mentor. If you'd like, you can also volunteer to be the coordinating online ambassador for a class or two.

Please add yourself to the top of the list of available mentors, and note the number of students you think you'd like to mentor next term (it doesn't have to be a final answer, this is just to help with matching students and mentors once the students start getting active) and if you'd like to take on the coordination role for any classes note that as well: Online_Ambassadors/Mentors (Don't add yourself to the lower "Additional online ambassadors section; that's for ambassadors-in-training and ambassadors who are already mentoring all the the students they want to take on.)

To coordinate between Online Ambassadors and Campus Ambassadors, we've been using a Google Group as a mailing list. It's not required, but almost all the ambassadors are on it. Would you like me to subscribe you? Email me with your email address if so.

You can catch with what's been going on so far with the first major message this term, with details about what the group should and shouldn't be used for: Wikipedia_talk:Ambassadors

You can also check out the first two ambassador newsletters, which have more detail about what's going on right now. You'll get future editions delivered to your talk page.

If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup.

Finally, please help us find more mentors! Because the number of students, and their involvement with mentors, is increasing so much for this term, we're going to need a lot of solid Online Ambassadors. Please take a few minutes to think of several other editors you know who would make good mentors, and invite them to apply the the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. The key things we look for are: regular activity (so that we can be confident they'll keep up with their mentoring role for the whole term), friendliness, and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones). You can point them to Online Ambassadors for information on how to apply and what to expect.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I'm reading through the newsletters now. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Question on adding information to articles
Hello N5iln,

I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I was just wondering if you could help me out with some tips on how to edit and expand articles properly and become a more frequent user of Wikipedia. I am currently taking a class at UC Berkeley titled, "The Politics of Piracy," so I thought a good place to start would be to edit the page on Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA, and Mitch Bainwol, CEO and Chairman of the RIAA. Is there anything I should be cautious of when exposing more information on these powerful key figures? By that I mean, if I post something that could be potentially harmful to their reputation but is backed by fact and credible sources, is there any way I can get in trouble? Other than that, is there any general advice you can give me on how to be a more effective user and properly contribute to Wikipedia?

Here are the articles I am planning on editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cary_Sherman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Bainwol

Please write back to me when you can. Thank you.

-Gunheim 99.121.58.36 (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'll suggest you start by reviewing WP:BLP. And while there's always a chance someone whose biographical information appears on Wikipedia could sue for libel, there is an absolute defense for such a charge: truth. If the information you add to an article is supported by reliable, verifiable sources, the information may be added to the article, subject of course to consensus of other editors. Regards, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. The WPL BLP page will certainly help me in creating a more organized and informative page for the articles I have chosen to edit. I will make sure not to post anything that can be considered an attack on someone and that the sources I have are both reliable and verifiable (after all, I'm sure Mitch Bainwol and Cary Sherman have quite a bit of experience in suing people). Is there anything else I should know about writing about another person? I was wondering if it is allowed to include rumors about a subject on a Wikipedia page if you cite where the rumors originated, but I can see why this may be a touchy subject. What do you think? Thank you for your help. Gunheim (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rumors are touchy by their very nature, and doubly so in a biographical article. They're often non-neutral, which runs afoul of WP:NPOV, and even if they originate in an otherwise reliable source, they're often difficult (if not impossible) to verify independently, which breaks WP:V. I'd say discuss them with other editors before including them in the text of an article, and then only if the consensus of the group is to include them. Also take a look at WP:GOSSIP; that section specifically deals with such matters. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to edit the article on Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill, adding information about Kill Bill Vol. 3 and it was taken down almost immediately. Part of it was true (he has announced that it will happen), but some of it was speculation gathered from around the web. I didn't know Wikipedia was so strict on rumors about something that couldn't really damage one's reputation (like a movie sequel), but I'm learning. These pages you just referred to me will help guide me in the Wiki ways. I'll look over them before making any major changes to the main articles I want to edit. One question I was wondering, however, was if you have to once again include a source for information if you use one of the sources already listed below the article but extract more information from it. With the Kill Bill incident, I got my information from a source that was already listed at the bottom, but Sinebot informed me that I had to include a source if I add new information. Should I just include next to my edit the reference number to the source that is already there? Gunheim (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Material regarding future events is rarely allowed to remain in an article for long. Movies that have been announced but have not yet been cast or begun filming, book sequels without a publication date released by a publishing company...these all fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Reviewing the edit you made, the first paragraph was accurate and would have been properly cited by the existing reference; however, the danger sign was when you used the phrase "various speculations". So to answer your question, yes, you could re-add the first paragraph of your edit and cite the reference appropriately; by reference name, if it's been set up earlier in the article, and I believe I saw that it had.
 * I realize I'm dropping a lot of referrals to policy on you, but the policies exist to ensure the project remains as factually accurate as possible. Don't let that stop you from editing, though. If your edit is accepted, you'll rarely hear anything about it. If it isn't, someone will (or should) explain why, and that's your cue to look at what you did and improve it, and by so doing, improve the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well keep dropping the referrals to policy on me because they are very helpful. I really should just read through the entire "Policies and Guidelines" and "What Wikipedia is Not" pages before making any more edits. Thank you very much for your help. I will contact you when I have more questions about how to make Wikipedia more informative and useful. One thing I'm wondering right now though: How were you able to see the edit I made when it was deleted by Sinebot yesterday? I tried looking for it in my user history tab, but I couldn't find it myself. I found the line where it marked that I had made an "unsourced rumor or speculation," but I couldn't find the original text that I contributed... Gunheim (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on the specific page's History tab. I routinely review page histories both as an Online Ambassador and as a member of the countervandalism unit, but I occasionally forget that other editors don't realize it's there. I'll try to be careful in the future and give you a link to a particular diff I'm looking at when I refer to specific edits. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

AIV
Just to quickly say that I saw your comment regarding the only-warning ban (was right in the middle of commenting before it all got sorted by an admin), thanks for your clarification, much appreciated! -- gtdp (T)/(C) 14:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I looked through the Contribution history and saw several non-reverted articles, some of which might have been legitimate (and would take a while to research to verify), but others of which were rather obviously not. Popping the user with a first-and-final was a bit premature, but given the rest of the edits, bypassing the normal sequence was likely justified. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my feeling too, I mainly didn't want to give a level 2 or 3 template over an only warning one if that would give off the impression that editors just throw out warning templates meaninglessly, but it does seem like a block is the right way to go here after a closer look at his contribs. Thanks again for your help. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 15:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For your valiant effort
For trying to reason with an extremely difficult editor. Your effort and good spirit are really appreciated and this cookie is yours. :) Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking articles students are working on
Howdy, Online Ambassador!

This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:


 * 1) Add  to the articles' talk pages.  (The other parameters of the WAP assignment template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
 * 2) If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: WikiProject United States Public Policy
 * 3) Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself.  The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well.  The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.

And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them The WikiPen if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.

Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Laval Article
People who have an unreasonable dislike for Laval post these so called reliable sources. However when you go to these sources they are based on hearsay and not facts. If you will not allow a caution to be posted than better to eliminate the items. No matter what you personally feel about Laval, many Frenchmen understand his motivations were to save France and not to allow it to be taken over by Germany. I met his son-in-law in London in 1948. I have read everything written about Laval since the 1930s. He was no angel, but he was not the man, as some have pictured him. Wikipedia represents objective and fair biographical material. Let us leave it at that. SirSwindon
 * What you say may be completely true. However, without reliable, verifiable sources to support such positions, they cannot be included in the article. Wikipedia cannot operate on the personal, anecdotal experience of its editors. Hence my reversion of your edits. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Since the article contains statements which when reading the material used as reference lacks citations,i.e. the material is based on hearsay --- why not remove the material from the article? Isn't this what Wikipedia is all about? Please answer that question. Sirswindon (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC) SirSwindon
 * Then it will be your burden of proof to demonstrate that the cited reference in the article is based on hearsay, using reliable, verifiable sources. If you can do that, and gain the consensus of other editors in so doing...that's how articles are improved. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I have demonstrated that the reference was not valid and the changes to the article are warranted. Sirswindon (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Read what posted pls ? It is outing the way he wrote it ? Am not disputing the investigation as you will see - am disputing the things he wrote which are way against Wiki rules. Babasalichai (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you should clarify that. The way your dispute is written, you're challenging the SPI itself. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please review where he attacks the PR guy its a clear attack in violation of wiki rulesBabasalichai (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this came up at WP:ANI I'll leave it to the admins. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Laval
 Chzz  ► 02:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Benitez
Hello... I am the original editor of the article Eddie Benitez and I am Eddie Benitez. I am not sure if I have processed the deletion nomination correctly, the page is very confusing. I am requesting you do that on my behalf. Over the past week, there are 2 IDs - Angelsonmystage and Westwind77 that has been putting false information and slanderous statements in the entry. I do not wish for any future edits to take place, the article has been butchered and I do not have the time to monitor this article daily. Please let me know how we can remove this entry immediately and block my name for future entries. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiaramusic (talk • contribs) 12:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I must admit this is a situation with which I have no experience. To my knowledge, there isn't a "simple" means of removing a biographical article from Wikipedia. According to WP:AUTO there are two avenues you might consider. If there are legitimate legal issues regarding the article, contact [mailto:info-en-q@wikimedia.org info-en-q@wikimedia.org]. Otherwise, post the article at WP:AFD (see that page for instructions). You might also try asking a question at the Help Desk; someone there might know of a mechanism for removing such an article that I don't know. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!
Happy First Day of Spring! Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2011!

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn 2011! To spread this message to others, add to there talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Padania article
Maybe you misunderstood what Enok wrote in talk page or possibly I misunderstood what you wrote as response. Enok made and proposed many changes to the article (notably re-ordering of sections, re-naming of sections, removal of the infobox, removal of the "languages" section, removing infos on Lega Nord's Padania, and removal of the "opinion polling" sub-section). We agreed on most of his proposals even if we disagreed in some cases (take the case of the "languages" section: at least three users supported the need of such a section, but finally we appeased him and removed the section), but we couldn't agree on removing other parts of the article. Note that there was no consensus in support of his changes. As a consensus was reached on the article much before his very first edits, he should have sought consensus before making his edits and especially when he understood that his edits were not supported by other users. As there is no consensus about the removal of the "opinion polling" section, I'm thinking about re-introducing it. He's asking for consensus on re-inserting the section, but as there was no consensus on its removal, I don't understand how he can do that. What do you think? You can answer here (you talk is on my watchlist now) or tell your opinion in Talk:Padania. --Checco (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking back over the Talk page, I think he's trying to use the bold editing cycle as a means of getting his material included in the article. If an edit is challenged by another editor, discussion is called for to determine consensus. If several editors come forth against the new material, that to me establishes consensus against that new material. It's what should happen with any edit on Wikipedia...either tacit acceptance of new material, which implies consensus, or challenge of new material, which engenders discussion to arrive at consensus. What I don't see is him working at constructive discussion to gain the required new consensus. While it's true that there can be no constructive discussion without initial disagreement, what's missing is the "constructive" part, as far as I can see. That's why I originally suggested dispute resolution. As far as what he seems to be asking, which is consensus to re-insert material that was removed without consensus, I don't see a need to ask consensus, as what he's essentially doing is reverting the article to a state that preceded the removal. You might consider asking for a third opinion as well, especially one from someone familiar with the base material (which I'm not). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhm, actually the opposite is true. All Enok's new material was accepted, while it was he who started to challenge the presence in the article of some materials (infobox, "languages" section, infos on Lega Nord's Padania, and the "opinion polling" sub-section) which have long been there before his first edit. There was no consensus on the removal of such material by Enok, so I don't see how he can ask for consensus about re-inserting some material he deleted without consensus. My question was: can I re-insert the material (i.e.: the "opinion polling" section) he removed without consensus? --Checco (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake, but the same cycle holds. A bold removal of material that meets with objections from other editors is as subject to gaining consensus as a bold addition. I would say that the removed material should be returned to the article pending the outcome of discussion. Again, I am not sufficiently familiar with the material in question to provide more than a procedural opinion here. And I'm not an admin, just an editor who sometimes lurks around admin noticeboards and offers advice where I think it'll do some good. I still think looking for a third opinion from someone who knows the material would help everyone involved in the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. But if four users and a couple of IP oppose that bold removal, is this consensus? --Checco (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If only one editor supported that removal, then yes...and I'm presuming that's what happened. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what happened: Enok removed many things from the article and nobody agreed with him; we appeased him by accepting most of his proposals, but he continued to remove things. He is alone against four users and a couple of IPs. I will write this in talk page and re-insert the "opinion polling" section. Would you mind to come to the talk and state your opinion then? --Checco (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sourav Ganguly
Thanks for telling me. But i am not new to editing Wiki neither do i need any introduction. What i edited was from fair point of view. if u have any problems with my edit please do mansion because wiki is allowed to be edited by everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daredevil555 (talk • contribs) 12:09, March 24, 2011 (PST)


 * The problem is that your edit characterized the subject as the "greatest cricketer ever". This is peacock wording, and without reference to reliable, verifiable sources, does not belong in an encyclopedic article. Hence my removal of the phrase. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ohhh... i dint have an idea about that. But thanks for telling me. I do not wish to add that's biased though.i will remember your recommendation next time when i edit something.(Daredevil555 (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

"Buttscratcher! Get yer buttscratcher!"
I'm reminded of an episode of The Penguins of Madagascar where King Julien has a booty scratcher. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not familiar with it. However, today does make me think of the exchange from Super Chicken..."How come you didn't use your super vision to find it?" "If I had super vision, I wouldn't be running around in this outfit!" --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
on ip 173.226.172.25. I have not warned or reported anything before and am looking for feedback so I can do it correctly/efficiently next time. Was that OK or should I have done something different? 73s, Chris Wiki4chris (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you did anything wrong, since the IP had only vandalized once or twice at a time over a period of days; most of the semi-automated antivandal tools would never have gotten past a level 2 or 3 warning. The IP needed to be reported, though, and an admin may either decide to see what happens now that the IP has received a warning for long-term vandalism. Depending on the admin, they may decide to block the IP. Meanwhile, you should read through WP:VANDAL. You'll find the basics of warning and reporting in that policy. Normally, an editor would get four warnings, escalating in severity, but there are exceptions for either blatantly disruptive behavior or long-term patterns. That IP fell into the latter category. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Non free
You taged the page Bipolar disorder in children non free. Can you elaborate. Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I had to go back and look at why I added that tag, since it was some time ago. Reviewing it now, I'm honestly not sure why I added it, unless I was thinking at the time that there were a large number of cited references to professional journals, many of which would be reluctant, if not resistant, to releasing their archived articles under a Creative Commons license. If you feel I added the tag in error, feel free to remove it...Ceiling Cat knows I'm not perfect! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP in articles whose subject is not a living person
Hi Alan, I was a bit puzzled by your comment at ANI that "Allied Artists International is an article about a corporation, not a person. Therefore, BLP does NOT apply."

WP:BLP specifically says "This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages" (my emphasis). So I don't think what you said is correct. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand thoroughly corrected. My impression was that since the article in question was about a corporation, a discussion regarding criminal charges against someone affiliated with that company would not fall under the WP:BLP umbrella, since criminal charges are, by their nature, a matter of public record. My concerns remain, however, regarding the dispute over that article as discussed at WP:ANI: to my eyes, it's still a very heated content dispute, and one side stands to fail in their assertions due to failure to provide citations for the source of their information. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_synchronization
Hi N5iln, Why did you revert the two edits made by 79.66.209.235 yesterday ? I thought they were useful. 79.66.216.249 (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm...you might want to review this page for why I removed that material. You might also want to tread lightly for quite a while. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Alan, if you look a little more deeply into the situation you may reconsider your view, spam is not always blatant and obvious, but i presume you are a busy person, it's easily to understand how details get missed in a hurry, both pages are less than a year old promoting commercial software. -it looks like spam to me, maybe you could suggest a better course of action on the matter, or some guidance if you can spare some time on this 79.66.215.72 (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, here's how I would have handled it...I would have been bold and simply removed the promotional material from the article, noting the reasons for that removal in the edit summary and maybe commenting on it in more detail on the Talk page. If someone else had decided I had taken the removal too far, they could then have reverted it, and a discussion would have ensued. That's usually how the cycle works. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)