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)

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)

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)

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)

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)