User talk:N5iln/Archive 8

don't know how to use this talk back feature.
What I wrote about FuelQuest is accurate. I previously posted a link to an article where the AAFES deal was cited but was removed. In terms of the claims about the commissions, I can post Mr. Heath's employment agreement and emails to FuelQuest before, during and post-dismissal. All of the information is available and the US Department of Defense has all the information on record (available under the Freedom of Information Act). What else do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomer3000 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem with the FuelQuest article, as has already been pointed out by another editor, is that it looks to be 100% promotional in nature. There's little if anything to indicate why the company is notable, apart from your statement that they got the contract with AAFES. Considering the article has been around for a year and a half and hasn't had a great deal of material added to it until now, I have to wonder whether it's possible to demonstrate notability. Just being a DoD contractor won't fill the bill, although it would be a step in the right direction. In order to get past the deletion hurdle, you and/or other editors will need to flesh out the article, make it sound less like a corporate advert, and show the company has enough activity in the business world to make it stand out. And you'll need to do all that by reference to verifiable, reliable sources. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Request
As it turned out, you read this situation wrongly, as it turned out, as shown by subsequent events. OK, this happens. See User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/April for my take on this, and all this would apply to you also. This being so, I think it would be a good thing if you would drop a note to Flyer22 expressing remorse. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, my involvement in the situation ended when the ANI thread was archived. And I'm still not seeing any errors in my observation. Flyer22 may have been a bit out of line, to the point where WP:AVOIDYOU probably should have kicked in (without, may I add, commentary to that effect either on Talk pages or ANI), but Bakhshi82 was WAY out of line with refactoring Talk page comments, and that was the main focus of my observation. Re-reading the thread now, it looks to me like there really isn't anything more for me (as a non-admin) to do, and that's as it should be. If I misinterpreted AVOIDYOU or its proper application, I'll take my trouting like a big boy and call it a learning experience. But my role in the situation was as stated at the beginning of my comment: a non-admin observer. An observer's role does not include soothing injured nerves; it's to observe, and report those observations. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't agree. This seems pedantry to me, and soothing nerves is everyone's business. But whatever. If you think that this sort of thing is the best method of staff development, then whatever. Herostratus (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose now would be a good time to point out that Wikipedia is an all-volunteer effort. If someone doesn't like one editor's particular approach or opinion, there's always another editor with a different approach or opinion they WILL like. As far as soothing nerves goes, the Internet is a big, scary place, and if someone can't take a bit of a bloody nose, they probably shouldn't be in the sandbox. My own nose has been popped more than a few times by well-swung trout, and I'm still here...and better off for it. But I'm also known to be harder-headed than some. Meanwhile, as I stated before, I consider my involvement in the matter ended as of the time the thread went into the archive. If you choose to call it pedantry, or shrug and say "whatever", so be it. That's one of the advantages of NOT being an admin; I still get to say when it's time for me to walk away. And that was the time. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

AIV report
Thanks for that, but the edit was made to another page, the page the report was made on (sorry can't remember), not their own talk page. Adam mugliston Talk  15:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please permanenetly ban this address from editing
This IP address is a shared address from an educational institution. Many students will attempt to make inappropriate edits and it's probably best to ban it entirely and permanently. If they wish to make edits, they can set up individual accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.119.34 (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if I were an administrator (which I'm not), I would set a finite time limit on blocking edits from an IP address, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. However, I will notify an administrator of this request so they can take whatever action they deem necessary. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification
Indeed, this is exactly what I was doing: trying to get those who wrote the article to improve it into a proper encyclopedic article by quoting verifyable sources, instead of wide hear-say allegations and unusbtantiated claims.

If you were unable to understand that, I pity you. And I am tired of trying to reason with people who appear brainwashed to the point of not hearing my argument: give me a REAL PROOF, NOT JUST SILLY CLAIMS. Until you do, refer to the topic of the articl;e as "ALLEGED", "PURPORTED", "ACCORDING TO ORAL STATEMENT" and so on.

Anyway. I am logging off from this and ging to sleep as it is 2:48 AM here, so this is the end of our conversation EVER as I will get another dinamic IP address tomorrow when I log in.

May 2011

Please do not use talk pages such as Death of Osama bin Laden for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Feel free to do so. Other editors will feel free to delete any attempts to insert WP:FRINGE claims. Sleep well. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama mugs all round
No, not spam. And nothing whatsoever that deserves a warning for vandalism. A valid topic that is worthy of discussion in that article, and/ or possibly in "Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden". Or maybe you don't do irony? Whatever, please reinstate this topic for discussion that you have decided, without any discission, to delete wholesale. Thank you. 86.172.225.184 (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be able to put an argument together to include such a section in Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden. You're free to give it a go. But getting it to fly in the main Death of Osama bin Laden is going to be harder than finding Swiss combat medals. In the meantime, I see that I did err in my warning regarding promotional material, since the link was to a news organization that was discussing someone's entrepreneurship...for that, I apologize. You may remove the warning at will. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have removed the warning. I think you are right about this article, but the topic is a perfectly valid one. 86.172.225.184 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hyping someone's website directly or via an article is still spam. Rklawton (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But you have misconstrued my point entirely. Showing examples of trashy cashing-in, such as those, "hype" nothing. 86.172.225.184 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no question that the merchandising effort was tacky (at best), although I have to admire their drive. Personally, I'd rather not send them any extra business, even indirectly. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your point of view seems very reasonable. So I will try and raise the topic, in a less ambigious way, at Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden. At least you have had the decency to apologise. But if I do not even get a polite response from another editor (who also decided to barge in here uninvited) about his mistake, I'll be raising the matter at WP:ANI. Thanks. 86.172.225.184 (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You've raised your point at AN/I and you've been shot down; if you persist, I'll block you for trolling. Rklawton (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I impose on both of you to please take this off my Talk page? I may take issue myself, otherwise. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why there are archive top & archive bottom templates, Alan. Feel free to use them on your Talk page any time. -- llywrch (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's already on my to-do list for the morning. Right now, though, I want to see the outcome of the related WP:AN discussion, and since it's directly tied to this discussion, it's more logical to leave it open until that's resolved. Me, masochistic? Naaah... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research
Hi ,

Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Eric Saade
Hi, could you check out my request for page protection of Eric Saades article. Especially as Saade is only a few hours away from performing in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 a protection of the page for the next few days would be great. To stop IP-vandalism. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin. If you already have a request in at WP:RFPP, it should be handled shortly. Thanks for your work in keeping vandalism out of articles, by the way...it's a largely thankless task. Cheers, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

IP 213
My instincts say trolling. Thoughts? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 19:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very possible. Quite a few trolling IPs on that Talk page have been coming from the same ISP: Virgin Media/NTL Internet, and a large number of those, from the Birmingham area. If I were a bettor, I'd guess one or two IP-hopping users. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. Best to call in RKLawton then. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 19:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just point me at them. Rklawton (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ready. Aim: Special:Contributions/213.81.122.102 ... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 19:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt
Hi! This is the last call for signing on for a Wikipedia Ambassador hooded sweatshirt (in case you missed the earlier message in one of the program newsletters about it). If you would like one, please email me with your name, mailing address, and (US) sweatshirt size. We have a limited number left, so it will be first-come, first-served. (If more than one size would work for you, note that as well.)

Cheers, Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

RfA
Gorm? I have gorm? Is this a matter I should discuss with my wife, my analyst, or with my doctor? (But thanks!) Hey, in regards to the message above, those hoodies are pretty sweet; make sure you get one. Later, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gorm n. The quality of being gormful. See User Friendly for more information. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Porgers and the ensuing brouhaha
Alan, I responded amicably to your own response at User Porgers attempting to crack my account. You'll know where to look if this section has since been bumped into the Archives. I linked to the archived version. Have a nice weekend! --Skol fir (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Saw it. Thank you. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey
Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Southern Adventist University and Raymond Cottrell
Take a closer look at, , , and. Note that the reference supporting the text that Tatababy and I removed and Fountainviewkid repeatedly re-inserted was a dead link. Even though I told him why I was reverting, Fountainviewkid persisted in inserting in violation of WP:V. In fact, WP:V was only met about 8 hours ago when DonaldRichardSands inserted a proper citation Mojoworker (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. I also noticed (well, it was rather difficult not to) Tatababy's edit summaries, e.g. "Quit telling lies!". Not exactly the best way to win friends and influence people. I think we can agree, though, that DonaldRichardSands has been doing some outstanding work on the article. I'm not sure if that's where someone thought there was an ownership issue, but there's quite a difference between "owning an article" and "being a major contributor to an article". I'll let more experienced (and better-caffeinated) eyes look over where things stand this morning. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Mojo it was a dead link, but I didn't realize that because I thought the correct reference had been corrected back when Lionel made the revert. Once I realized it was a dead link I then used the Blue host site, until you challenged it. Then I made the change to the print version of Adventist Today, but I believe I formatted it incorrectly. I may have been accidentally in violation of WP:V, but I was just trying to keep a source that I knew was reliable and valid. Donald's addition confirmed what I had been saying but what you and a couple others kept denying. I admit that WP:V wasn't "fully" met till about 8 hours ago, however once I edited the source citation to the print version, WP:V was essentially met, just with some formatting issues. I might also remind you that Donald was able to link to the online source confirming my main argument that this source does exist, is verifable and has always existed for the past 8 years (including during the Challenge phase on Southern Adventist University). Fountainviewkid 17:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * QED. I think we can call this resolved, can't we? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably. The Adventist Today citation source keeps acting up, as Donald has noted, but hopefully the full print citation should be enough to assuage any concerns (or wikibickering).Fountainviewkid 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not saying Tatababy was right (and certainly was not diplomatic). And I've had absolutely no issues with DonaldRichardSands edits. What I'm saying is that Fountainviewkid is not blameless in this issue. He was informed the link was dead on May 11, but I can understand that things fall through the cracks and he forgot about it. As I said at ANI, he consistently ignored the fact that the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The reason that I say he exhibited WP:OWNERSHIP is that he used the faulty rationale that he "knew the source existed and (he) wanted to keep it up", as mentioned here, to justify every attempt to remove it per policy, when the correct response would have been to leave it out until he found a valid citation and then re-insert it with the correct citation. At that point (where we thankfully are today, thanks to Donald), no one would have a valid reason to object to it on policy grounds and we would've avoided all this drama.  And if Tatababy had reverted that edit, I'd be the first to restore it. Mojoworker (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you admit Tata wasn't fully right. I'm not saying I'm blameless., however I will say that I did not ignore the guidelines of WP:V. I admit that there were was the situation with the changing of the sourcing and the improper format, but that's different than your accusation. When I say "I knew the source existed/wanted to keep it" I meant I knew it was reliable, valid and could get decently quick access to the full citation. In the meantime the partial citation I believed was appropriate until the full one could be inserted. There was no need to remove it, since it was and always has been a valid source. Yes there have been some formatting issues, but those could have been solved (as they finally were with Donald) through much less complex methods than dragging people through the mud on ANI and making accusations that aren't fully true. This drama could have been avoided if instead of trying to remove the source at one and attacking it to death, we simply waited 24 hours (the time it took for Donald to insert the full citation). I knew it existed and was working on getting it, or even working on making the link non-existent through the Talk page, but some editors refused to go along with the discussion, trying to remove it right out, rather than giving a chance for the formatting adjustments to be made. There's a reason why Jasper was reverting Tata, while Mojo was not, and I think it has to be with Jasper's longer understanding of the whole discussion. Sometimes it helps to not make any fast moves. I think Donald (and even Jasper) have adequately proved this. Fountainviewkid 20:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

John cooper
The article is fully referenced and verifiable, so the addiction of john cooper a serial killer is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raised leg (talk • contribs)
 * As long as a reference to verifiable material is included with the addition, there's no problem. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Comment
I read the section you posted but it still isn't clear whether I can self-revert or not. It mentions talking to the person's who page it is, but if the page is from someone who are in negative standing with it doesn't mention what to do. I tried to immediately self-revert (I undid my comment) but the editor who's talk page I had posted on immediately re-added my comment, even typing my signature. What can be done? Fountainviewkid 18:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the heated exchanges between you and bW, my first recommendation would be to quit posting anything at all on his Talk page. As far as what's already posted there goes, he looks to be very insistent on keeping it there no matter what, so attempting to alter it in any way is likely only going to escalate things further. I'll take a look at what admins are involved in the AN3 and/or AIV discussions regarding this and see if there's any more input they can contribute. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

St Peters School, Kadayiruppu
You accidentally restored an "expand" template when reverting. Just letting you know, since "expand" is deprecated. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for passing it on. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ninedee
Greetings Alan, and thanks for your input at Articles for deletion/Ninedee. Another editor has uncovered references that might satisfy WP:BAND, would you mind revisiting the debate? I might be inclined to withdraw it if you were satisfied. Regards,  Skomorokh   10:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Swedish, so I ran the cited sources through Google Translate. Between the three separate articles, I think a good case can be made for meeting WP:BAND, so I'll strike my Delete !vote. The article's still rather stubbish, though, so someone else could still wander through and re-list it at AfD. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Islam in the United States
I am not sure why you removed my comment. I did say anything that was incorrect. Islam is the most dangerous force in the world. Do not block the truth, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.160.198 (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can support that assertion by reference to reliable, verifiable, and neutral sources, you can include it in the article. Otherwise, it's gone. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

unpublished non-mainstream
Removing unpublished non-mainstream material from physics articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, you should make a notation of it in the Edit Summary, and probably expand at length on the Talk page, so other editors don't think you're arbitrarily blanking sections of the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It was already being discussed on the Talk page, it looked like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no physicist, but based on what I can glean from the Talk page, I'm not seeing the relationship. Perhaps an expert third opinion should be sought regarding the source material. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I got confused with another url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Non-standard_cosmology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC) What kind of expert third opinion do you need? We could e-mail a professor of physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the material is unpublished, it's not usable as a reference on Wikipedia per WP:V. I hadn't noticed that the reference was in fact unpublished; what I saw was an editor removing material without comment that included a referenced source. You were right to remove it, and you're free to continue to remove such unpublished sources, although I will repeat my recommendation that you at least note your reason for removing such material in the Edit Summary. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 128.59.169.46 has made several reverts claiming the same or no notation at all in Edit Summaries. These were not arbitrary blankings of sections, but very specific, reminding of ex-user Science Apologist chase on non-mainstream theories. As for Masreliez, his is a well published non-standard cosmology and I have tried to reinstate these blankings. Mr Gearloose (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is way behind the curve at this point. If there is a demonstrable bias or conflict of interest regarding the IP editor's deletions, feel free to restore the removed material...just make sure it's referenced to reliable, verifiable sources. As I stated when the deletions were occurring, I'm no physicist, so I can't comment confidently on the article content either pre- or post-edit. With all that said, I've taken the necessary step of redacting your inclusion of what appears to be a user's real name in your comment, in accordance with WP:OUTING. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no such intention. I clarified on my talk page that his user name was clearly at some instant changed to his real name, initials jps, as you can find here, also clarifying why I wanted to draw attention to this person. His way of editing and reverting, what he considered non-mainstream, is similar to the initiating IP-editor's here. And adding to this my suspicion are a couple of more recent IP-editors active on tired light following the same pattern. If so, I find it victimization and harassment and should be properly dealt with. And it is unbelievable that User:Kurtan now seems to have been treated in a way that should have fallen upon the persecutor(s) of his, mine and some like-minded people ?? Mr Gearloose (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:V and WP:OR. If there is suspicion of bias or "persecution" regarding the subject matter, I'd suggest both enlisting the outside opinion of an expert in the subject and bringing the matter up at WP:ANI. As I've said before, I'm not conversant with the topic material, so all I can do is call things as I see them, and what I'm seeing right now is a protracted and heated content dispute that needs dispute resolution. Some of the dispute-resolution process appears to require the expert assistance I mentioned. At this point, simply because this goes so far beyond my high-school-education understanding of physics, I'm going to take myself out of the loop. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 128.59.169.46 [did this revert] stating (Big Bang theory was developed by top scientists and mathematicians in the field.) Please note the removed reference is Lemonick, Michael D. (2003) Echo of the Big Bang Princeton University Press pg 7.  The relevant quote on that page is "Forty years ago the Big Bang was a somewhat crackpot theory".  If book published by Princeton University Press does not meet WP:V I have to ask what the sam hill does?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is WAY behind the curve now. If the dispute is still going on after this much time, I'd suggest moving into dispute resolution. Start with asking for a third opinion. This needs fresh eyes. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, okay, you're right, you're right
I agree but as I said I was like a madman! I assure you it won't repeat. But I still want to change the pages because I still claim. How can I do this? Do I have to write down my sources? If so how can I find a source to say that Safiye Sultan wasn't a lesbian? The British claim that to show Nurbanu as an angel and Safiye as a devil! I think they just make a smear campaign, don't you think so? Hope you understand and you'll help me. She wasn't a lesbian. You don't know the Ottoman disciplining and it makes me think that IT is the only thing that cause the misapprehension, huh? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.98.18 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing anything in the article, either before or after your edit, that claims Safiye Sultan was a lesbian. I do see a claimed blood relationship with Nurbanu – specifically, that the two were cousins – but nothing further. That seems to be the core of the misunderstanding, if I'm reading the situation correctly. So what I'd prefer to see someone do is locate a verifiable source that says Safiye and Nurbanu were cousins. (Given that we're looking at historical material from the 17th century AD, it could be a bit more difficult than just typing their names into Google.) So let's go from there, shall we? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ETA I think I've spotted the issue, by looking at the article on Safiye Sultan's kira, Esperanza Malchi. Specifically, that article states "The secretary to the British Embassy even attributed Malchi's influence to the assumption that she and Safiye were lovers." That statement is NOT supported by any material other than the single source used for Esperanza's article, and given what little I know of the history of the period, such a statement may fit with the political maneuverings of Henry IV and/or Henry V. Again, it would take an expert in European History to be able to say one way or another. That's so far beyond my own familiarity with the subject matter that my best guess would be worse than no guess at all. At this point, what I'm going to do is mark the statement in question in Esperanza's article with a "citation needed" flag, and leave everything else alone. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Shadowboxers
I really appreciate your support on the talk page. What are we going to do about this article? I posted a message on the admins noticeboard about 8 hours ago asking for someone to take a look at it for me. I told them that the main defences were that they are really good, they are up-and-coming, and that the article will really help them become recognised. But even the admins have ignored me. The "speedy" template has been up for 30+ hours. What can be done? — Fly by Night  ( talk )  04:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The CSD nomination hasn't been closed yet. That takes an admin. If declined, the next step would be a WP:AFD nomination. I agree that the article fails WP:BAND, no matter how loyal or ardent their fan base. But all I can do is voice that opinion. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The CSD nomination was closed by the admin TParis, who went on to label it for WP:PROD. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  20:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor review
As a fairly new editor I noticed the "Editor review" section of the community pages only a couple of days ago. Looking down the list of editors requesting feedback I could see that some requests had been submitted a long time ago, including yours in March. Before requesting a review myself I thought I would attempt one or two reviews, and you will find I have made some comments under your request. Your contributions to Wikipedia are of an entirely different nature to mine but I can see that your involvement in quality control is providing a very useful service in helping to maintain the encyclopedia's integrity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

99.146.249.129
Can't get this guy to stop. Waiting on page protection and on the report you commented on. Calabe1992 (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like the IP was blocked for three days. Perhaps that will convince them to look elsewhere for their "fun". --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: /Q
Hello N5iln, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of /Q, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a test page. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what else one might call it, other than perhaps G3, patent nonsense. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's either, to be honest. Yes, it's a page that obviously needs to be deleted. It doesn't seem to fit any of the speedy criteria, though, so a PROD is a better idea. I PRODed it, and the creator removed, so it's now at AfD here. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk:Guitar Hero high score
You just edit the talk page and put db-g8 (or db-g3 as the case may be) at the top... what's the problem you've been having? BencherliteTalk 00:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No real problem, just the first time I've run across that particular situation...a Talk page with no associated article. As usual, what looks complicated turns out simple. (Rule 1: make sure it's plugged in!) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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 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", that the source supports the content it purports to support, especially for BLP-sensitive content. Best, -- brew crewer  (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/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 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. 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 EL 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)
 * I just now noticed that. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:User simple-0
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 Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;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 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. 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 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. 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 &mdash; 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.  Ron h jones (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.  Ron h jones (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)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring
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 Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)