User talk:ItsZippy

North South University

Hi Zippy! I'm Faisal. It is a rather odd name indeed but unfortunately that's what my parents decided to name and its stuck. I'm a 35 old financial services professional working in the Square Mile. Lately, whilst reading the Wiki article on my university, I've noticed some users (Reason.uploader & Eshika Sikder) scribbling rather irrelevant and unfounded rubbish to an otherwise decent (not absolutely grammatically correct) article. Statements which were consequently corrected by me. Thank you for protecting my university ! 90.209.55.141 (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Faisal, thanks for your message. I'm pleased that I could help, but you need to know that the page will not be protected indefinitely. The protection will expire tomorrow, so you will need to discuss the issues you have with the users - try starting a discussion on the talk page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Splendid. I shall try to engage the users in a constructive discussion. 90.209.55.141 (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That is great to hear. Let me know if you need nay more help. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yunshui's Idea

Hi Zip! I was talking to Yunshui and he had a great suggestion about how the CVUA should handle rollback requests. He proposed that when a student is ready, the instructor should have the student request rollback at PERM. Than, the instructor should notify you guys to look into the request. What are your thoughts? Best, Electric Catfish 18:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC).

Could you take another look at locking of Eternalism?

When you get a chance, please take a look at my comment at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Eternalism_.28philosophy_of_time.29_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29--is it unreasonable to think that locking a page should be in response to edits which are actually disruptive or controversial in some way, rather than locking a page because one editor thinks another editor should be forbidden from all further edits to a page if there's a dispute between them about something on the page, even if these further edits are completely unrelated to the dispute and no specific objections have been made to them? Hypnosifl (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And since the Eternalism discussion no longer appears at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, here was the comment I made after the locking of the page that I asked you to take a look at above: "ItsZippy, do you recognize that Machine Elf was objecting to my edits simply because they were made by me, and not because he/she could point to anything specifically objectionable about them, or any way in which they were related to the issues in the lede paragraph which were the subject of our dispute? (my edits were not to the lede, but just three short factual paragraphs to other sections) I would think that in order for an editor to demand page protection in response to some edits, they should be at least be willing to point to something specifically wrong with the edits, whether in their edit notes or on the talk page." Hypnosifl (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypnosifl, I don't have a problem with your changes to § Relation to Eastern body of thought, but the new paragraph you want to add to § Simultaneity is problematic. At this time, the volunteers at dispute resolution are still trying to discuss your first edit with you. If you can make some headway with them, and if you can at least stop trying to make it personal, we could move on and discuss your subsequent edits.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I have said anything that would qualify as "trying to make it personal", unless you are talking about my questioning you about your reasons for objecting to the edit to the lede we are having a dispute about, and about what you meant when you said I was misrepresenting your position. Even if you find the paragraph I added to the simultaneity section problematic, do you say it is "problematic" for reasons relating to the ongoing dispute we are having about the term "eternalism" and "block universe" (which seems unlikely since the paragraph I added doesn't even mention the term "block universe") or for separate reasons? If for separate reasons, you can raise them in edit notes or on the talk page, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for blocking all further edits to the page when both of us were already holding off on making further edits to the lede which is the subject of our dispute. Hypnosifl (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I've been busy with other things. Anyway, I protected the page because of a content dispute; while the request at RPP brought it to my attention, it was the dispute which led to to protect the page. I am not inclined to unprotect the page because I am not convinced that the edit warring will stop when it is unprotected (if it will, then I am happy to be proven wrong when the protection automatically expires). I suggest that you both desist from editing the page for a little while and focus on the dispute resolution. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

But again, the edits that led Machine Elf to demand protection had nothing to do with the dispute! Do you disagree with this point? Machine Elf certainly never mentioned any connection with the dispute, he/she seemed to be just demanding that there be no further edits to the page of any sort, even if there was no specific objection to the content of these edits, and even though both of us had already voluntarily stopped editing the section under dispute. Hypnosifl (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

'Natch... Go to town, it's expired.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks--I had thought since our dispute about the lede was still going on you would still be taking the position that no edits to other sections should happen, but if you're OK with such edits then there's no problem. Hypnosifl (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good work!

With all the strong conflicting arguments, I knew this AfD would probably be a difficult one to close. I believe your decision and closing comments were fair, very well thought through, and very descriptive. I'm rather impressed with how you cut through the noise to focus on the heart of the nomination through good common sense and policy. A great piece of administrative work indeed! Keep up the good work, stay well, and happy editing .  -- WikHead (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, I appreciate it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hey Kelenna (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Doubochinski's Macrophysical Quantum Effect (DMQE)

Doubochinski's Macrophysical Quantum Effect (DMQE) has an active AfD tag, and points to an AfD you closed. It looks like a move was involved. Thought you might want to pay it a visit. Monty₈₄₅ 01:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How peculiar. I've deleted the page; thanks for notifying me. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Keansburg

Hello, How might I add to/edit this article? It appears to be locked even while I am logged in. Tiltedsun88 (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)tiltedsun88

Hi Tiltedsun, do you mean Keansburg, New Jersey? You should be able to edit the article if you are logged into your account; what seems to be the problem? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanx, no its fine now but was locked for 24 hours. Tiltedsun88 (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)tiltedsun88

Re. Your AN post

I've replied to your post on AN. I do think it might be a good idea for the Wikimedia developers to introduce such a feature, so as to remove the tedium of having to reapply semi-protection in the immediate aftermath. With regards to Syria, though... speaking as somebody who is active in topics relating to that country, I get the sense that it'd be subject to extensive vandalism for a long time to come. I mean, I don't necessarily advocate indefinite semi-protection for very many things (aside from obviously controversial subject matter), but with the ongoing crisis in the country, it might be best to keep the article in such a state until after the situation resolves itself. I don't have a mystical crystal ball on me, so take this with a grain of salt, but I don't think it should be too much longer now. Doubtful that the situation will last for years to come, probably going to end sometime within the next twelve months.

Oh, and as a side note, thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate the sentiments you've expressed there — just one question, what sort of areas are you referring to when you say "clerking"? I have made edits to AIV and UAA before, commenting on a number of reports, but I didn't think that doing so would leave any sort of positive impression on administrators who actively tackle those sorts of backlogs (other than "this guy's a wannabe admin"). In any case, it's actually been a much more pleasant experience than I was expecting; I had been under the impression that the community would be much tougher in their assessment of me. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 01:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm bothering you, I really hope my posting here doesn't come across as needless badgering. I don't mean to overstay my welcome, I just wanted your opinion on a number of things. Take care. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 20:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd missed this post - I didn't intend not to answer. I'm slightly busy at the moment so I can't answer right now, but I'll try to get round to it soon (tomorrow, or the day after perhaps). Don't worry about badgering me - I don't mind at all (and, if I seem to take a long time to reply again, please continue to badger). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's fine, I figured as much. I take it you're quite busy with real world engagements at the moment, which is all good. Don't worry, I can be patient. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 20:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You commented on the RPP for Kashmir Conflict

Declined This is a content dispute and, without heavy vandalism or BLP violations from IP users, semi-protection would be inappropriate. If I were to protect, it would be full protection; the conflict has not reached a stage where that would be useful. If the conflict continues, full protection might be necessary, and if the IP editors continue without discussion, then semi-protection or blocks may be appropriate. At the moment, I'd encourage those involved to try to contact the editors, and perhaps seek dispute resolution.
— User:ItsZippy 16:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment there. I have absolutely no problems with it. You wrote the underlined section also (BTW, I underlined it here to increase clarity). I think a semi protection is suitable now because the IPs (more than one) have continued “without discussion”. If you still think that a semi-protection is not necessary then you might, at least, want to keep an eye on the history page of Kashmir conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
BTW, a newly created account called Opinedsenior (talk · contribs) has also joined the scene and re-included the blanket statements without discussion (Which others and I have previously excluded). This is nothing short of impugning the integrity of a whole nation and the motive of its security forces without conclusive evidence. This is more than just BLP violation. Come on.
Thank you. Cheers! Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 09:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please check the history of the article. The IPs are continuing unhelpful edits (also the new-created account was blocked), I think now a temp semi-protection would be particularly useful. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 00:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I took a while to reply; I was busy with other things. It seems Mark Arsten has now dealt with the issue and semi-protected the page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:CVU that could use a close

This conversation hasn't been touched in about a week and I'm wondering if you could help us determine consensus on it. I'm involved, and I noticed that you haven't commented, so you'd be a prime suspect to close the discussion. Achowat (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've not formally closed it, but given my interpretation of consensus. Hopefully, an archived close won't be necessary (but feel free to do so if it gets out of hand). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Syria

Can you restore the move-protection from Syria? I guess that this is an error, and considering the visibility of the page it should not be moved. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, that was a mistake. Beeblebrox has got there. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Slimming World

Hi Zippy, hope you've been enjoying the Olympics. I'm a new user to the Wikipedia site and noted from your user page how you are willing to help new users. It's always great to get a helping hand from an established member of the community. I am looking at the Slimming World page and noticed that you have previously contributed, which is brilliant. Some of the statistics quoted in the article are now out of date. I work for the organisation and so wouldn't make changes to the article myself. However, I have used the talk section of the article to post some updated figures with links to the sources of these stats. I believe that best practice is to contact a previous contributor to alert them to the talk suggestions you have made. Hope you don't mind me contacting you. If you would like any more information at all please let me know. And have fun with the Olympics. Best Wishes Leigh — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeighGreenwood (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Hi Zippy, thanks for your response before about Slimming World, is much appreciated. Yes of course, please call me Leigh. Sorry I wasn't sure if you meant for me to respond on my own talk page or yours, so I've added my reply here below too. Certainly you're right that I'm more than happy to listen to other editors and feel it's very important to act in the spirit of Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia as a source of information all the time and recognise its value as an objective source of information. I will have a look to see if there are any more up-to-date figures available publicly. Can I ask, if I do make the changes myself, what is best practice to ensure that others can see that I have done this with the best intentions and am open to comments? I would of course reference all changes and could explain the reasons for the changes in the talk pages. If I did this, would it be ok to also drop you a message for you to have a look at the changes too please? Many thanks for your guidance. As I say, I use Wikipedia as a source of information all of the time but I am new to the contributions side of things. Many Thanks, LeighGreenwood —Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Five

Stop by for a tasty glass of wiki-iced tea at the Teahouse, today!

Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteer who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
• More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
• Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
• New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
• Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. SarahStierch (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You did it!

Congrats on getting Religious Language to FA, that was quite a project. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm very pleased with that (that's the first FA I've done on my own). Now I need to find something else to do... ;-) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback template thing

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

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

• Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold

• News and notes: FDC portal launched

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Featured content: Casliber's words take root

• Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Rob Portman

Ha, I was just thinking the same thing. It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy after the NPR article [1]. --AW (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if people who write those articles realise the work they create at Wikipedia... I'm disappointed that it had to be done, but the edits were becoming disruptive. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting but not terribly relevant article: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/why-wikipedia-isnt-the-veep-oracle-131322.html NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge.
Message added 23:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Problem of religious language

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Problem of religious language. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Trenton Merricks Hajime Nakamura Christian Sprenger Paul Draper (philosopher) Zuzka Zguriška Living in Your Car Komal Nahta Phillip H. Wiebe Theodore Drange SpongeBob's Runaway Roadtrip Pamela Sue Anderson Matt Targett Legends of Bikini Bottom Napoleon and Love Bakersfield P.D. List of Lavender Castle episodes The Adventures of the Scarlet Pimpernel Bronte Barratt C. Stephen Evans

Cleanup List of Holly episodes List of Crash (2008 TV series) episodes Natural evil Merge Problem of evil Metaphysical naturalism Verificationism Add Sources Viktor Schauberger Philosophy of religion Atheism Wikify Taede A. Smedes Lassie (season 7) Truth claim Expand Philosophy of science Anna Karenina (2012 film) Wolfgang Smith

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

just a note:

"Membership dues" should be in by the 15th. — Ched :  ?  18:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

MedCom nomination

Hi ItsZippy! I have just nominated you for a position on the Mediation Committee. Have a look at the nomination page, and if you choose to accept please add your signature and answer the five questions. You might also want to look here and here for more information on the appointment process, or alternatively feel free to ask me any questions you have. And good luck! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; let's see how this goes. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You deleted my source? :/

Hello you deleted on the Kim Jong un page this: In August 2012 Kim Jong Un announced economics reforms similar to the People's Republic of China

Kim Jong il's personal chef Kenji Fujimoto stated "Stores in Pyongyang were brimming with products and people in the streets looked cheerful, North Korea has changed a lot since Kim Jong-un assumed power. All of this is because of leader Kim Jong-un."

I stated the references and there were legit news sources. I have a feeling its because I deleted responsibility of human rights, in which somebody (might of been you) said to me that it was legit and that the source were defectors? that is only a opinion not a source and the defectors never said kim jong un they said kim jong il.

I can't edit the page now :( :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaileonard (talk • contribs) 18:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Kaileonard. The reason you cannot edit the page is because of the content dispute that was going on between you and some other editors. To prevent the article simply being reverted back and forth, I protected the page, which means that only administrators can edit the page, for 2 days. I then reverted the article back to before the dispute started, as that seemed like the most stable version. I was not endorsing any one particular version 0 yours or anyone else's. The protection will expire in 2 days, but I would be willing to unprotect the page earlier if you can assure me that the content dispute will not continue. This means that you will not edit the page and, instead, will use the article's talk page to discuss your edits with other users. If I unprotect the page and you make another revert, you will be blocked for violating the three-revert rule. If you want me to unprotect the page, let me know; if you do, I will assume that you have read and agree to what I have written here. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

India and state sponsored terrorism

So you WP:PREFER self published sources? You just reverted a load in which are being used to support a lot of contentious content. If you must revert do it to were Crisco had removed the SPS and added CN tags.[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Darkness Shines, thanks for your message. As with whenever I apply WP:PREFER, I have no preference to the version I reverted to, other than that it was the most stable. As there are no BLP, copyright, etc problems with that version, it seemed to be the most appropriate version to restore (seeing as the AfD triggered the content dispute, the version which initiated the AfD was an obvious benchmark). Any version after that is contentious and, although self-published sources are not ideal, they are not such a problem that they can't stay there until the AfD is over. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The PREFER thing was a joke, I assume you did not get it :o) I should have been clearer, the edit I asked you to revert to was also due to a linkvio, All the content is still there, just the ref with the linkvio is removed and CN tags added. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear - I didn't get a joke again...? Perhaps I take myself too seriously... Anyway, I'm still not seeing a reason to restore Crisco's version, especially as that has three additional and seemingly controversial paragraphs. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Full Protection of article Kim Jong-un

Hi there,

Whilst I was cleaning up the article posted above (I've read a good deal on the subject, and so it's no surprise that such a controversial article would be on my watchlist), I noticed that the page had changed from semi-protected to protected as the result of a "content dispute." While I acknowledge and appreciate your effort to facilitate taking the dispute to the talk page, after reviewing the revision history I'm not sure it really warrants blocking all users from editing the article.

The current "dispute" is over the section "Human Rights Violations under Kim Jong-un", which has been repeatedly deleted by a relatively new user, Kaileonard. The user in question asserts that "I deleted Responsibility for human rights violations because it does not contain any evidence for this allegation and is not factual." (taken from edit summary); this despite the fact that it was sourced 8 separate times in a section that contains only two sentences; a cursory examination of those sources reveals that they are each from a reliable source. Furthermore, on both Kaileonard's talk page and in the edit summaries, it was requested that he take his dispute to the talk page, as well as refrain from marking major edits like section blanking and the adding of potentially-controversial unsourced statements as minor.

I'll admit, I do have some concerns about the editor in question: since creating an account, his edits have been exclusively limited to leftist and communist topics, including vandalism and deletion of relevant information, as well as the addition of unsourced, POV statements. His addition of an image with no discernible source to the Kim Jong-un article, despite the lenghty debate about not including any non-free images on the talk page and RFC, is also a concern.

Looking at the summary again, it seems that his efforts were being reverted back to the last stable version by at least 3 editors, whereas he himself violated the 3RR rule. Given the circumstances, I think some sort of topic ban for this individual editor might be in order, but the article itself, in my opinion, should return to semi-protected.

I hope you don't take this as me questioning your actions; far from it! I just thought I'd bring it up, as I was about to make some sourced additions to the article, and I'd rather not have to wait two days to do it because of one problem editor. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh, thank you for restoring the article to the last stable version! I just noticed that after I commented here. Zaldax (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Zaldax. I had seen the edits to the article, and I think sanctions should be placed on Kaileonard individually in the form of a block or topic ban, not to all editors of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(MY REPLY) Hello thank you for your response. I know a lot about the DPRK (North Korea). I said " In August 2012 Kim Jong Un announced economics reforms similar to the People's Republic of China

Kim Jong il's personal chef Kenji Fujimoto stated "Stores in Pyongyang were brimming with products and people in the streets looked cheerful, North Korea has changed a lot since Kim Jong-un assumed power. All of this is because of leader Kim Jong-un.""

I don't think this should of been deleted because i showed my sources which were The Guardian. Could you please edit the page and add it back? :)

Ok, thanks everyone for your comments. Zaldax and C.Fred, I appreciate your concerns so have removed the full protection from the page, as you suggest. Per the comment I made in the above section, I will not block or sanction Kaileonard now, though if he continues edit warring, I or another admin may do so. I hope that's cleared things up - let me know of any further problems. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Kim jong un

Can you add this back? Btw my sources were The Guardian. Could you please also allow me to edit the Kim Jong page again? I will not edit the human rights violations.

In August 2012 Kim Jong Un announced economics reforms similar to the People's Republic of China

Kim Jong il's personal chef Kenji Fujimoto stated "Stores in Pyongyang were brimming with products and people in the streets looked cheerful, North Korea has changed a lot since Kim Jong-un assumed power. All of this is because of leader Kim Jong-un." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaileonard (talk • contribs) 18:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If the above statement is added into the article again, I think it needs a little more context than that. I certainly agree that this story deserves mention somewhere on Wikipedia (Kenji Fujimoto has been a major source of information about the DPRK in the past, and so his surprise return visit and subsequent interviews are absolutely worth mentioning), but the above quote, as inserted in the article, cannot stand on it's own. If the full story published in The Guardian is examined, it strongly cautions that his claims "need to be taken with a grain of salt." In any case, it's certainly something that can be added to the article eventually (and perhaps does warrant a mention), but it needs to be taken to the talk page first. Especially because the following sentence from Fujimoto's interview "All this is because of leader Kim Jong-un" (emphasis added) sounds suspiciously like regime propaganda... In any case, if you take this to the talk page, I'd be happy to work with you to come up with a wording that is suitable and NPOV enough for inclusion. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, I have now unprotected the article; however, I will be watching it to ensure that the dispute does not continue. If you make another revert, you may be blocked. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Last Time: Kim Jong un

Is it okay if i add that he speaks limited German and English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaileonard (talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That is ok, provided that you have a reliable source which you put in the article to verify that claim. Do you have source which you could use? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at User:ItsZippy/CVUA/Anderson9990.
Message added 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at User:ItsZippy/CVUA/Anderson9990.
Message added 20:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm really sorry there's eleven hours difference between where we live. Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 20:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's alright. Anyway, thanks for doing that. I'll have a look at your test now and let you know how you've done! ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at User:ItsZippy/CVUA/Anderson9990.
Message added 21:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 21:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis again

When we started the mediation we agreed not to get into disputes related to the mediation, however, Evlekis is involved in a dispute on Rona Nishliu[3], where he has already made 3 reverts along with Irvi Hyka. Throughout the mediation he has been violating our agreement and again he's violating edit-warring policies. Neither the mediation can move on nor the disputes can be resolved if a user constantly violates all policies and agreements.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left him a brief note; hopefully that'll deal with it. I am about to go to bed, so if there are any urgent problems, you might need to let another admin know. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Are you still in the UK, Or are you on vacation in another country? I'm asking because i noticed you appear to be active when it is 11:30 PM in London.--Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 22:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I noticed you said you were about to go to bed.--Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 22:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at User:ItsZippy/CVUA/Anderson9990.
Message added 22:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 22:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem of religious language

Could you double check the Signpost writeup to make sure I didn't mangle it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks great - thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, good. That's dense prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at User:ItsZippy/CVUA/Anderson9990.
Message added 01:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anderson - What's up? 01:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sislej Xhafa and others...

Hi ItsZippy. I notice that User: Evelkis got involved in a dispute continually over Sislej Xhafa, which is related to the issues. It is really unhelpful and counter-productive to get involved, continually whatever is to do with any Albanians. Do you think you could step in from the dispute for now. I don't know what is his User: Evelkis agenda? but it seems that whatever is any Albanian contributing for the sites that to deal with Albanians or any kind of modest contribution with the facts, he revert and his commodity and delete the important contribution. I don't understand why he do this? Why is abusing such precious Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, that is for sharing and learning. I will appreciate if you can step in. Thanks, I appreciate it. Estherboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estherboy (talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If it is a content dispute, please take it to WP: DRN. If it is a dispute over user conduct, please take it to WP: WQA. Electric Catfish 15:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Zippy. I hope you read this before you look into Estherboy's grievance. I cannot have been expected to permit edits such as this. I requested Estherboy's account be blocked but the admin dealing with it declined. Obviously it is not for me to interfere with the actions of an admin and he did explain his reasoning, though for your information it may interest you to know that Estherboy is an incarnation of the following duff accounts:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.80.122.41 (was banned)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:928:10:10:211:24FF:FE3B:6582
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.165.252
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.35.184.66
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.217.163.109
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.219.177.85
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.14.93.68

Just about all summarise their blanking ceremonies with a trademark "minor edit" signature. Examine the contributions, we are not dealing with a constructive editor nor one who has come to improve Wikipedia. All these edits to Sislej Xhafa yet the user has added absolutely nothing apart from a declaration that the individual has American citizenship and that itself still awaits citation. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the admin that declined to block Estherboy primarily because the issue was not classic vandalism and it was reported to WP:AIV. Sounds bureaucratic and I reckon it is, but I was trying to clear a backlog. I just checked the origins of those IPs and found they are located in:

• United States
• Italy
• Switzerland
• France
• Holland

Possible explanations:

• unrelated editors
• "meatpuppets"
• open proxies/TOR nodes
• an editor that travels

Someone should probably check for the possible use of open proxies/TOR.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

PS, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dispute Resolution#blockage of new facts and information on the entry of Sislej Xhafa

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that we could probably deal with this constructively. For now, I am going to assume that is trying to improve Wikipedia and is not operating an international ring of meatpuppets. I cannot see that any of the issues here have been discussed at all; the immediate accusations of vandalism and meatpuppetting have meant that we've not managed to begin any useful discussion. I suggest that both editors begin by trying to discuss the issue on the talk page, primarily by looking at the available sources (without anyone accusing anyone else of vandalism, meatpuppetting, POV-pushing, or anything else). This means that, if both editors are trying to improve Wikipedia and willing to talk, then we'll see some progress; if it turns out that someone is just being disruptive, then we can deal with that as it happens. Does that sound acceptable to you both? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am always happy to discuss. I've opened a discussion on Talk:Sislej Xhafa so I look forward to any suggestions there. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Note

Note here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Turkey_Mountain_inscriptions. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• There was certainly no consensus to exclude all mentions whatsoever from the Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) article, nor was that issue presented in the AfD. Some editors are now attempting to use the AfD close to justify this, and I would ask you to clarify that this was not intended by the close. Thank you.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That was the consensus of the discussion: that it not be merged. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. The intention of the close was that the article nominated was deleted and that content from it is not merged into Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma). If someone now finds reliably sourced information about the inscriptions and wants to add them to Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma), that would probably be ok (as the issue with the article at AfD was the lack of reliable sources, so that would deal with the problems raised at the AfD). Due to the sensitive nature of the issue, it would probably be best to establish consensus on the talk page before attempting something like that. Having said that, if the deletion review comes to a different conclusion, I will obviously accept that.

Userfy destination?

At WP:Articles_for_deletion/Schoolit, can you indicate where the Userfy took place? Is that a usual thing? (I see it here). --Lexein (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was userfied there. That is a possible alternative to deletion if it is possible that the article creator could further work on it to be published later. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Turkey Mountain inscriptions

I may be wrong here so need your opinion. During the AfD an editor performed a merge with Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) with the edit summary "merging with Turkey Mountain inscriptions - see that articles afd" On the talk page that editor wrote " as the clear consensus at that article's afd was that it should not stay". The AfD said delete, so I deleted it - thinking 'delete does not mean merge). Now we've ended up with a minor edit war. My own feeling is that doing something like this during the middle of an AfD is a terrible idea as it allows bypassing an AfD, and that the discussion at Talk:Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) is backwards. Any comments? I'm also obviously unhappy at including fringe stuff that can't be reliably sourced except to a self-published book, a book that no one seems to have cared about, etc. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Essentially it should never have been merged during the AfD because it was part of Aarghdvaark's inappropriate NAC to delay the inevitable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. I've made a comment two sections above this regarding the closure - does that answer your question? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Turkey_Mountain_inscriptions

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Turkey_Mountain_inscriptions. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

• Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

• News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

• Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

• Featured content: On the road again

• Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

• WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

• Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdBrite

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdBrite.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:One nation conservatism/GA1

I've given the review and looks really good. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Really good work on the article. I don't see any issues in it thus, passed it :) Keep it up buddy. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 05:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I appreciate it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at User:ItsZippy/CVUA/Anderson9990.
Message added 04:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anderson - What's up? 04:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Theopolisme.
Message added 11:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just wanted to let you know if you hadn't seen this - if you already have, again, don't feel obligated to answer - I'm just honestly interested in what you have to say. :) Theopolisme _{TALK 11:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)}

Thanks, I'll have a look at that later (about to go out). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

J2A accounts?

Hi, Zippy. I ran across something odd here and wanted to get your opinion on it. Based on the edit behavior, it looks very much like the same person serially creating accounts over the past couple of months, however, since the vast majority of the edits are limited to their own sandboxes, I don't see that they're being necessarily disruptive or otherwise breaching policy. On the other hand, with nothing much to show from over 500 cumulative edits across the 14 accounts, it also doesn't appear to be particularly constructive activity, but I'm not sure if it rises to the level of WP:SPI. What do you make of this? ➢ Bgpaulus <small-caps>(WORDS & DEEDS)</small-caps> 17:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That is very peculiar; I don't think I've seen anything quite like that before. If there is nothing malicious going on, then there's no need to worry. It would only be sockpuppeting if they were abusing multiple accounts (evading a ban, or trying to influence a discussion, for example); if they are acting harmlessly, we don't need to take any action. Nevertheless, it might be worth contacting the user, who obviously doesn't quite understand something. Either use the talk page of the most recent account or, preferably, see if they have e-mail enabled. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Notice

Could you move it per this conversation. Thanks, Dan653 (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:ItsZippy/CVUA/Anderson

I've moved the page to that title, As my name has been changed.--Anderson - What's up? 22:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tower.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Tower.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection.
Message added 14:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry for the spammy template, but this is something you might want to have a look at - not urgent, just when you have time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Pocket Monsters: Best Wishes! Season 2 episodes

Would you mind extending the move protection through September (per my request on RFPP)? There's no reason the page will need to be moved until then, anyway.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a month of protection is really necessary; this is not an ongoing issue, and I don't really like to protect pages longer than is necessary. Of course, if a week doesn't cover it, then I'd be happy to extend the protection, but I'd like to see if shorter protection will work. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the protection through September will keep the page from being moved to a title that has not been confirmed, but has been posted throughout fansites. This program will not be broadcast in English for at least that long anyway, so the page will not have to be moved until then. But thank you for finally locking down the page. I do not know if Principal adjoint has finally understood me.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, I'm happy to apply longer protection if that becomes necessary. See how well you can engage with Principal adjoint; it would be good if you could get him working positively with you. If not, there are steps we can take. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at User:ItsZippy/CVUA/Anderson.
Message added 01:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anderson - What's up? 01:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi,i fulfilled the criteria on Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll page then what to do next?--Zeeyanketu ✉ 03:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Divine command theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Wainwright (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 19:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello,thanks for being my instructor,I have used twinkle for some time and can you trace my work and check it for quality of my work --Zeeyanketu ✉ 19:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fantastic. I'll give you your first task now - as always, let me know if you have any questions. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

According to talk page at User talk:74.221.14.130, you blocked the account for 3 months for persistent vandalism in April 2012. The IP user has had at least two instances of vandalism reverted this month alone. Zepppep (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I won't block him now - IPs may move between users, so this may not be the same person I blocked in April. If he continues to vandalise, then warn him and report him as usual. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

• Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary

• News and notes: Core content competition in full swing; Wikinews fork taken offline

• In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia

• Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.

• Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension

• WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

Hi. As you are a regular of WP:UAA, you are invited to participate in this RfC, which may influence the noticeboard. Have a good one. NTox · talk 08:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's celebrate

	For One Nation Conservatism Good Article
	I invite all of Zippy's stalkers to join me in a glass of champagne to celebrate their successful GA promotion of One Nation Conservatism! Salute! – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 09:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah thanks. A glass of champagne right now would be nice. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

can i provide urls of respective questions on my academy page --Zeeyanketu ✉ 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean for your most recent task? The best way to do that is to use diffs - do you know how to use those. To get a diff, go to the page history and compare your edit with the most recent version. Then, copy the URL of that page and post it at the correct place in your academy page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Anderson (Public)'s talk page.
Message added 04:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anderson (Public) (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Userfy request

Post Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WorkDrugs_(band), please userfy the article and talk pages to either the article creator or my own User page, for further sourcing. Thanks! (reply here is fine) --Lexein (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you asked the article creator if he'd like the article userfied? I'm happy to do so, but it would be good if you could let him know. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sock activity

Here. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, who do you think this is a sockpuppet of? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have suspicions on several users who write only (almost exclusively) on Greek or Cyprus related matters and suddenly they appear or disappear under different names. I am not sure if they could take it as a personal attack but I can provide you with 3-4 such user names at this stage. I have got the impression that in this case the user even pretends not to know how to sign so we would take it as a new user. May I mail the names? Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the best course of action would be to open a sockpuppet investigation, if you are reasonably confident that sockpuppetry is taking place. Are you comfortable with doing that? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For all of your great work at AIV today! Electric Catfish 15:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it wasn't much. Thanks anyway - always appreciated. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Electriccatfish2's talk page.
Message added 16:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Electric Catfish 16:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, how long after a {{uw-username}} notice should I wait before reporting someone to UAA? Electric Catfish 17:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism and WP

Is it acceptable to praise terrorism in WP? This photo in a user page? I protest and request its removal. I will appreciate your help. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Why don't you discuss it with the user at their talk page first? Electric Catfish 01:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You cannot discuss with that kind of people. If you believe you can speak to supporters of terrorism you do that please. --E4024 (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop a user from placing an image like that on their userpage. Wikipedia is not censored, so there is nothing to prevent a user from displaying whatever they like on their userpage - this is especially true with things like terrorism, which is always very subjective. If you object, the best way is to talk to them (and, frankly, if you adopt an attitude of calling them terrorist supporters and refusing to engage with them, you won't get very far at all). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The said photo was somehow removed. If anybody helped the user to come to reason, my thanks go to that anonymous helper. --E4024 (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony Nader GA Review

Hi Zippy, I have been away tending to some real life issues and today saw your GA review. I'll use your feedback to work on the article and get back with you. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That's great. If you manage to deal with the points I raised, then it should pass GA. I am happy to have another look at it once you've made improvements and let you know what I think (I can't give a second GA review; just give you pointers before you submit it again). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I notice that you have failed the article on the same day that you reviewed it without any discussion with the nominator (me). When I do a GA review I generally try to give the nominator some time to bring the article into compliance by placing it on hold for one week as outlined at GAN This is because there is often a long wait when an article is relisted and a lot of work for a new/second reviewer to start over and make a new assessment. Other GA reviewers have also extended this courtesy to me on other articles and have then given them GA approval after some modifications. I think this is a more efficient approach. Something for you to consider when doing future reviews.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I do place articles on hold when I think there are issues that could be fixed quickly; however, if there are a number of major issues, I find it unhelpful to have a GA review hanging over its head. In this case, I felt that the necessary improvements would take a some time, so putting the article on hold wouldn't be helpful and a fail then renomination would be more productive. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. Meantime, I have made a list of questions here that will help me to understand what needs improvement. Please respond when you have time. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That's great, I'll have a look at that later (might be tomorrow). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Danny Hilton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Danny Hilton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Hilton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hate speech

I deleted hate speech from the talk page of an article. I hope it's okey, because it included insulting words for the Turks (like this scribe). --E4024 (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I'd like to see this as a user with a genuine concern about the article. What he said isn't perfect, but it's not spam, nor is he solely attacking other editors. I think it might be best to leave it on the page, if only to give him a fair hearing - if his concerns are illegitimate, people will make note of that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What about "Fascist bully country"? I don't think that I come from that place. On the other hand, and FYI, only yesterday I referred to "mentality" somewhere, without using country name and my comments were immediately removed by a user. (I thought about it again and withdrew my own words in the end.) Moreover, the said username is a sock puppet -I know for sure and if you look around right here you will find the owner- that I do not see worth to investigate. Sorry to disturb you with these things; I wish we were all democrats and civilised... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair point - I must have missed that. I don't have a problem with you removing it, but if someone wants to reinstate it, it would be worth leaving it there, to avoid any drama. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

PP of Born of Osiris

Hi, ItsZippy. I'm nor detecting much edit-warring here -- except perhaps from the editor who made the PP request -- and I don't think the page requires protection. The request came from a pugnacious and unconstructive editor who is interested in protecting The Right Version. If you'd like to get a flavour of this editor's preferred manner of interacting with other Wikipedians, please have a look at the comments and edit summaries here, here, here, here, here and here. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems you have tried to discuss this with the editor without much success, you're right - protection was probably not the best course of action here. I will unprotect the page - could you try sending a personal message to this user on their talk page (not templated), just to see if they'll engage in any discussion at all? If not, there are steps we can follow to deal with disruptive editors. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Birnbaum

Which articles you are talking about? I saw you edited "Privation". I didn't delete any info there, only the ref. It's just because of paragraph splitting the diff does look like deletion of text. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you removed some information from Augustinian theodicy. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I eliminated triple retelling the same in different words. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. I've been meaning to copyedit that article for some time, anyway. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge.
Message added 06:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Userrights for User:Callanecc (alt)

Hi Zippy, when you get a chance (and so I don't fill up WP:PERM with four seperate requests). Could you please copy (for lack of a better word) my current user rights (Reviewer, Rollback and Account Creator), and the Confirmed user right, over to my alternate account User:Callanecc (alt)? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem; I've done that for you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. How are by the way, we haven't had much contact for a while. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I am good thanks - going to University at the end of September, so I've been preparing for that. How about you? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Good, I'm on holdays from uni, so enjoying my "extended study break" as one of my lectuers put it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 20:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think i have completed my question --Zeeyanketu ✉ 20:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Anderson

Hi Zip! Just to let you know, Jc37 revoked Anderson's rollback rights. Electric Catfish 15:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. I don't disagree with Jc and the situation seemed to merit it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding whether rollback should have been removed for that reason or not.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 20:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

see! --Zeeyanketu ✉ 20:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

MEDCOM Nomination

It is my pleasure to inform you that your nomination to the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. The open tasks template, which you might like to add to your watchlist, is used to co-ordinate our open cases; please feel free to take on an unassigned dispute at any time. Please e-mail me directly so that I know which e-mail address to use when subscribing you to the committee mailing list, which is occasionally used for internal discussion. When you are subscribed, feel free to post to this at any point if you need feedback from the other mediators. If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to working with you! For the Mediation Committee, --WGFinley (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations to you and I look forward to serving with you. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, well done. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; I look forward to serving on the committee. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to make your new host profile!

Hi ItsZippy! Thanks for being a host at the Teahouse! We're working on the Host lounge renovations and we've created a new way for hosts to become hosts. Please take a few minutes and test it out here, by creating your new host profile. It's also a good excuse to update your image, quote, and information about yourself :) You can join in on the host discussion about the new feature here. See you at the Teahouse! SarahStierch (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Stinky Boy

User:Stinkyboy820 seems to be a "test only" account on island-nation articles (Haiti, Cuba). Let us see if bot warning will stop him... --E4024 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; he's been indef blocked by Materialscientist now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. BTW I now notice I wrote Cuba instead of Cyprus...--E4024 (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!

Hey there ItsZippy, I noticed you've listed yourself as a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard but you haven't been very active there lately - I was hoping if you had some spare time if you could take a look there and offer some assistance. Thanks again for your help :-) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Theopolisme 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

• News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide

• Recent research: New influence graph visualizations; NPOV and history; 'low-hanging fruit'

• Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?

• Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten

• WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who

• Discussion report: Sidebar and main page alterations; Recent Deaths; Education Program extension

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Hey Zip! NTox gave me a DYK checker script which automatically checks the statistical parts of the QPQ requirements. Can you please link me to where the DYK hooks that are pending review are located? Thanks, Electric Catfish 14:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC).

I don't know a great deal about DYK, but is this what you are looking for? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Electric Catfish 14:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

:) Harsh (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

userfy please

Please userfy the Peter Jensen article - I strongly think that additional reliable sources will clearly show his notability, and this seems the cleanest way to proceed. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you can find it at User:Collect/Peter Jensen (trainer). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I rather suspect the big problem was some editor really, really did not like the word "psychologist" anywhere near the person -- it will likely end up as "Canadian Olympic trainer" I should think once the dust settles and some non-contentious material gets added. Collect (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not he was called a psychologist didn't seem important when I closed it. I closed the discussion as keep delete because of the lack of reliable sources (the ones provided, as was mentioned, were not specifically about Jensen). If you want to move the article back into the mainspace, you'll need to find some good sources. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean that you closed the discussion as "delete".

I disagree with your assertion that "It has been sufficiently demonstrated that the sources provided are not specifically about Jensen, and are thus do not provide the in-depth coverage necessary for notability". The link to the full article I provided has significant coverage of the subject and was not contested by any of the participants. Four of the final five participants said "keep", with the delete being merely "per nom". Cunard (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant delete, sorry. Anyway, I felt when closing that the strength of argument (and numbers) was on the side of delete; all of the references provided throughout the debate were successfully shown not to establish notability. Anyway, as it has now been userfied, you still have access to the article, so you are free to improve it and find the necessary sources to make it ready for publishing. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please review my rewrite. As the closing admin, you have the discretion to return the article to mainspace and declare that {{db-repost}} is not applicable. Please note that the sources I bundled into the first reference are all passing mentions in reliable sources that do not establish notability. Their purpose is to establish unambiguously that reliable sources refer to Jensen as a "sports psychologist" and hopefully preclude further edit wars (see the discussion on the talk page).

The sources that provide nontrivial coverage of Jensen are (i) http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/11FEC8EE59854B70/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A ("Hey doc, I've got a problem; Sports psychology breeds success, just ask members of Team Canada"), (ii) http://www.readersdigest.ca/health/healthy-living/5-ways-be-your-best ("5 Ways to Be Your Best"), and (iii) http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/10C28C60AAD8FE80/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A ("Psychologist has Brian Orser relaxed, ready"). Thank you for your consideration. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems alright - I would say that the sources you have added mean that the concerns that led to deletion at the AfD have been dealt with, so G4 would not apply (and feel free to link to this discussion when you publish it). Nevertheless, someone else may nominate this for deletion if they do not think the sources are enough (that is not to say that I think it should be deleted, but I would not condone a speedy keep if someone did nominate it). Is that ok? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Collect has moved the page to Peter Jensen (Canadian Olympic trainer). Cunard (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, as closing admin, would you add a note to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Jensen (psychologist), noting that the article was userfied, the page was rewritten, you believe {{db-repost}} no longer applies but there is no prejudice against renomination, and the article has been restored to Peter Jensen (Canadian Olympic trainer)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at John F. Lewis's talk page.
Message added 15:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John F. Lewis (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Francis Anhalt

WP:RELIST states: "Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the {{relist}} template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." I believe that consensus has already been achieved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Francis Anhalt, but since you disagree, please add a "short explanation" on why you "did not consider the debate sufficient". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem; I have done that for you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theodicy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benevolent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 14:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I didnt get perfect examples still so as soon as i get i will respond and i have changed my signature bacause they match with someone. ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 14:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

I think the task on the final exam is difficult, Because there aren't any pages i can find to request protection for.--Anderson - What's up? 07:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, skip that one and finish the rest of the questions and tasks in the exam. Keep looking out for pages that you might be able to request protection for; if you get to the end and you have still found none, let me know and we can think about what we'll do. Does that sound alright? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection for this page.[4]. It was fully protected for 2 days.--Anderson - What's up? 19:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at User:ItsZippy/CVUA/Anderson.
Message added 21:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I successfully requested 1 page for protection.I'll leave the second one because i can't find any more pages to RPP for. Anderson - What's up? 21:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. I'll have a look soon. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity

Hello Zippy. I see that user Qatarihistorian asks another user to join a discussion, so that a consensus may be reached at, here. S/He makes this request (is it canvassing?) at the said user's talk page. The said user must have accepted the invitation, so he goes to the said discussion page and makes his/her contribution. However, he does this not with his WP user name but his IP. (I wonder why?) Now you will wonder how I know his/her IP. Simple: The said user has talk in User:Dougweller's talk page both with his/her user name and the said IP. As all the talk therein is over an insistent claim (of sockpuppetry) it is very easy to understand to whom the IP belongs. (The topic of talk is about this scribe; something I have already labelled as harassment to Doug. I mean harassment to me, not to Doug. :-) FYI.

(Sorry if I could not make myself clear, it is quite past midnight here in the old continent and I am very sleepy. :-) Thanks for listening. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not quite sure what you mean. If you think someone is sockpuppetting, then you are free to open a sockpuppet investiation about it. I really don't have the time (nor the willingness) to get into a detailed sockpuppetting case. If you think someone is harassing you, it would be better to go to WP:ANI with enough evidence to present a good case; dealing just through me is not very transparent, and relies on me making a final decision, rather than the community. Your post above is quite unclear - I don't even know who you are making allegations about - but, if you have a genuine issue that needs resolving, there are plenty of open forums where the community can asses the evidence you provide. Even if I had the time and patience, I could not deal with this on my own, so bringing this to the talk page of an individual admin is not the best way to go about dealing with it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I disturbed you like this. I think I just wanted to complain and looked for someone who would listen to me. I am afraid taking people to forums is not my way of doing things. Neither was, until recently, complaining to others about third parties, but some people really annoy me and I simply want a few others to know this, nothing more... All the best and sorry again. --E4024 (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

AN/I note

Just an FYI. I see you are attempting to help mentor Anderson. Anderson started an AN/I thread, which you may wish to look over. - jc37 20:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find it (not at ANI, AN, or any archive). Could you point me towards it, please? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Rollback - jc37 21:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New Labour

The article New Labour you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:New Labour for things which need to be addressed. Road Wizard (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

I've added my name as in instructor, Let me know if you have any concerns.--Anderson - What's up? 05:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Anderson, I think that is too soon, especially while there is a current discussion about your rollback rights at AN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kudpung, Anderson. It is probably a good idea to wait a little while before signing up as an instructor, just so that you can get a bit more experience with all areas of anti-vandalism. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Should i start by reverting vandalism and inviting users to the CVUA for 1-3 months?--Anderson - What's up? 05:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you should just concentrate on chasing vandals and doing some content work for a while to gather more experience. The CVUA is currently restructuring their operation and may not be able to cope with an additional influx of students for a while. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

RPP

I applogise if I have stepped out of line - I didn't realise that Anderson was commenting on RPP at your recommendation. However, considering other issues that are under discussion, I have suggested there that perhaps he should leave such maintenance areas alone for a while at least until other issues are resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is quite alright. I haven't instructed Anderson to make comments like that to RPP; I have only instructed him to go there when learning about making protection requests. I don't encourage people 'clerk' at those noticeboards, I just try to help them use them properly if they need to. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Happy Labor day

I've left a few comments on the Divine Command GA review. Sorry if they're too jumbled. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw - thank you very much. I've got a bit of spare time now, so I will have a look. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I am suggesting the following addition to the section on John Hick in your excellent article “Augustinian theodicy.” Hick (esp. his Evil and the God of Love ) has been such a major voice in theodicy generally and in opposition to Augustine that it seems that he might warrant more voice in your article. What do you think?

• For Hick, suffering serves God’s purpose of bringing “imperfect and immature” humanity to himself “in uncompelled faith and love.” Hick acknowledges that this process often fails in our world. However, in the after-life, Hick asserts that “God will eventually succeed in His purpose of winning all men to Himself in faith and love.” Vejlefjord (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vejlefjord, thank you very much for your message. The article is not 'mine', though I have worked on it a great deal, and you are free to edit it if you wish; still, I appreciate you wanting to discuss it with me first. I would personally be inclined to leave that out, as I think it would take the article off track a little. The article is about the Augustinian theodicy, so Hick is mentioned wherever he commented on the theodicy (both his classification of some theodicies as 'Augustinian', and his criticism of the same). I think it would be good to keep the bits on Hick strictly to his comments on the Augustinian theodicy (or we could fill a page with just what Hick said). Does that make sense? I don't know if you have seen the article on Irenaean theodicy, which I have also spent a lot of work on (though I have not brought it to the same standard as Augustinian theodicy yet) - there is certainly room to talk about Hick more in there; have a read and see if there's anything you could do to improve it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

• News and notes: World's largest photo competition kicks off; WMF legal fees proposal

• Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?

• Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror

• Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)

Hi ItsZippy ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Mediation on Naturalistic Pantheism

ItsZippy, I would like to clarify whether this mediation also covers the Pantheism article, I believe it should, if that is allowed. The edit war exists there too, and for exactly the same reasons. If we don't deal with it now, we will need another mediation for it covering much of the same ground.--Naturalistic (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the mediation covers both articles - I have given a full response at the mediation page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Requesting closure of an AfD discussion

The article Nishikant dixit was nominated for deletion --->Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nishikant dixit on 28 August, and is still not closed. The consensus has been reached to delete. I request that AfD discussion be closed so that the article can be deleted. Harsh (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It seems the article was never properly listed (I think the user who relisted it the first time didn't quite do it right). Also, someone demonstrated at the end that the person might exist, so the hoax rationale is somewhat moot; I have relisted the article for those reasons. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it and relisting the article. You said that the article was removed from the AfD listing on 28. So if anyone deletes the log entry in AfD, wouldn't it be automatically/manually reverted? Harsh (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what happened. Electric Catfish relisted it on the 28th August (I don't quite know why, as the discussion was posted on the 28th) - all I can assume is that, because he relisted it on the day that it was listed, the tool removed it from the 28th and didn't add it again. It's unusual, and I am not entirely sure why it happened. Anyway, the discussion will have another week and, hopefully, a clear consensus at the end of that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ohk...thanks. By the way, I wanted to know how would someone assess a user to be in good standing or not in good standing (as stated in WP:NAC). I also wanted to know if someone nominates an article about a village which isn't quite notable (and there are perhaps hundreds of villages of same name in that country), but its existence is still verified by a couple of sources, then should it be nominated under that reason? Would it be incorrect as per WP:NPLACE. Harsh (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A user in good standing tends to be someone who has been around a little while (not ages - a few months, say) is not blocked or under any other sanctions, and has not been asked not to close AfDs. As a general rule, I advise non-admins only to close discussions that have a very obvious consensus - as in, a unanimous keep/redirect/merge verdict. With the village, if its existence can be verified, then it will generally be kept - is there a specific AfD you are referring to? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is this article named Nandnama. I nominated it without reading that relevant policy. Harsh (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to withdraw it, let me know and I'll speedy keep the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I want to withdraw it. Thank you so much for all prompt responses. Harsh (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)