Jump to content

User talk:ItsZippy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Canford audio PLC: new section
Line 455: Line 455:
</div>
</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0391 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 0391 -->

== Canford audio PLC ==

Hello Please eplain why this page has been removed. Which section is classed as advertising so i can amend. This is a non endosed factual page which does not promote a product in any way.[[User:WillyDonker|WillyDonker]] ([[User talk:WillyDonker|talk]]) 13:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:32, 25 October 2012

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
My apologies. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Rollback - jc37 21:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.”[1] Hick acknowledges that this process often fails in our world.[2] 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.”[3] Vejlefjord (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ John Hick, “D. Z. Phillips on God and Evil,” Religious Studies , Vol. 43, No. 2, posted on www.johnhick.org.uk/article18.html (accessed September 3, 2012).
  2. ^ John Hick, Evil and the God of Love , (Palgrave Macmillan, 2nd edition 1977, 2010 reissue), 325, 336.
  3. ^ John Hick, Evil and the God of Love , (Palgrave Macmillan, 2nd edition 1977, 2010 reissue), 342.
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)[reply]
OK, will do when I can. Vejlefjord (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Hi Jack. I have proposed a compromise wording on the World Pantheist Movement, on the mediation page. It would be good if you take a look and suggest how to proceed.
Allisgod is being extremely inflexible, he won't budge an inch. He does not even seem to be reading what I write any more but simply responds by saying I write too much, or I am trying to bully him.
My compromise wording for the current question was 37 words long and included all 22 words of the version he said he would accept.
His own "compromise" however also involved my allowing him to edit the Naturalistic Pantheism page and agreeing not to remove any of his additions that were properly sourced, however:

  1. This strays into areas we have not discussed yet and
  2. It ignores issues such as synthesis, POV, incorrect reading of sources, and biassed POV selection of sources, all of which he has done a lot of.

I took another look at the Pantheism page recently and I do believe there is not much there that I would like to see changed. With any reasonable person it should be possible to come to an agreement, but with Allisgod I am not at all sure. What does one do about edit warriors who will not compromise in a mediation?--Naturalistic (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Yes, I want to withdraw it. Thank you so much for all prompt responses. Harsh (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I've done that for you now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CVU Gold Award

CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
Zip, you were the CVUA's first admin, a great instructor, and a visionary who took the Academy to heights heretofor unseen, it is my honor and priviledge to award you the Counter-Vandalism Unit's Gold Award, our highest decoration. Achowat (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you very much. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tea Leaf - Issue Six

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

  • Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
A lovely little teahouse nestled in Germany from Wiki Loves Monuments
  • Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
  • Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
  • New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
  • Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.

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. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to review my request on AWB checkpage

Hi,
I have a pending request for AWB HERE, pending since 20 August. I want you to approve/reject my request based on your discretion. Thanks. Harsh (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure I am able to. If it was a simple request which hadn't been controversial, I probably would look at it, but as a few people have presented some concerns, I think I am probably too involved, especially as a direct response to a message on my talk page. I suggest you wait a little while and find something else to do, and request access in two or three weeks. In the meantime, if there is something urgent that needs doing, you might find someone with access who can help you - you can make a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks anyways. Harsh (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anshuman Sharma

Would you delete this AfC submission that I tagged yesterday? As you can see from the page's history, I attempted to clean the article by removing promotional content and excessive URL links but it continues to be promotional and provides very little material appropriate for an encyclopedia. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and it does seem very promotional; I have deleted the page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minetest

Hello ItsZippy. I believe we communicated sometime in the last month, I was wondering whether the article I link you to in the header may have any position for a possible AfD or another type of deletion. Since I am new and I don't want to get a bad view of myself early I thought I would ask someone who is more experienced.

My reasoning behind my thought of possible deletion is the consideration that the article is about a game/software which is not really notable. 3 sources are provided. 35 references inline. 2 sources I say are notable but only a bit and they are Linuxgamenews and Iloveubuntu. They provide 18 of the inline sources. Then 17 inline sources are used by the main website. The website is only link where content can be questioned, half of the information used on all sources are not verified in the source provided which is increasing my questioning concern on whether it is notable or not. I personally would consider a propose deletion rather than any other or to leave it but if so the article will need the sources to be much more reliable and verify able. The reason I contacted you is to avoid taking action which was in appropriate. If you could contact me, that would be great. Thanks ItsZippy, John F. Lewis (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that would be a candidate for deletion. As far as I can see, all the sources provided are either unreliable or not independent. There might be one reliable source, [2], but even that is dubious and, alone, not enough to establish notability. Feel free to nominate it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion via AfD or via Speedy? John F. Lewis (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfD. A page like this would only be eligible for speedy deletion if it made no credible claim of significance at all. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Proposing the deletion now. Thanks! John F. Lewis (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was a PROD, rather than an AfD. Is that what you intended? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I must have made a mistake then. Ill fix it now. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, well done. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assaf Abu Rahhal

Zippy, Greetings, I understand that you were the admin for the Rahhal article that was soft deleted. If that would be the case, then may I request access to a copy so that I and my students might edit it for improvement. If that's not possible or my facts are wrong, could you as an admin explain my options. Thank you, user:crtew(no access to tildes now)

No problem, you can find it at User:Crtew/Assaf Abu Rahhal. Please try to address the issues raised in the AfD before moving it back into the mainspace (I can review it for you before hand, if you like). If you have any questions, please just ask. Also, if you have no access to tildes, the sign button at the top will insert them for you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Crtew (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zippy, An edited draft at the above location is ready for review. The two issues in the AfD as I saw it were a lack of any kind of notability statement and an indication of Abu Rahhal's relative importance. I used the notability statement to tackle both of these issues. In addition, I indirectly showed that Abu Rahhal received SIGCOV through numerous references. His career and life were fleshed out in the articles. As for republication, I would suggest the title be changed to "Death of Assaf Abu Rahhal" but I would defer to your opinion. The biggest problem with writing the narrative was dealing with the two hardened positions that contradict each other. My aim was to be fair and balanced, and I don't think either side would be happy by this account but I also don't think anybody would claim that this was a one-sided narrative. It was unfortunate that the original obituary was no longer available online, and I wonder if that was where the precise birth date already in the article came from. It is Wikipedia policy to delete sources no longer online or can this cite be restored? At least the article was cleaned up in the process! Also beneficial was that it opened up an article surrounding the death of Layal Najib. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks better, and you have dealt with some of the concerns; however, I'm not entirely convinced that it's ready. For reference, I am looking at WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP1E. You have found a wide range of sources, which is good, but they were all published all around the same time - all of them except one were published on the 3th, 4th or 5th of August 2010, the other was on the 15th. To really demonstrate notability, you would need to show that this had a lasting effect, which mean sources published after the event - can you find anything that was published later on, perhaps from 2011 onwards? If not, the article might just get through an AfD because of the geographical scope of the even, but it would be close (I wouldn't support keeping it yet, but I tend to fall towards the deletionist end of the scale). A source or two published a few months after the event would cement it, so that's where your work would be best spent. Also, sources that are not online are acceptable (and can often be more reliable), you just need to give enough information for someone to be able to find the source themselves if they wanted to. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zippy, I added a source from 2012 that honored the second anniversary of the death of Abu Rahhal in the town where he was killed. Do you agree with moving it to "Death of ... " Thanks again, Crtew (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added the 2nd 2012 source! Crtew (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does it get moved back into main article space? Crtew (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Should I move it? Or will you move it? How does the article get married up with its former talk page and with a link to the deletion discussion? Thanks, Crtew (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does look much better, well done. Notability might still be a little tenuous - this only mentions him once so is not really enough, but this is about him and published sufficiently after the event. If it were at AfD now I'd vote keep, but weak keep. If you want to move it into the mainspace, you may do that yourself now. If you intend to keep improving the article, I would look for some further sources (perhaps from another publication - Al Akhbar is good, but multiple sources would be useful). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from morality

Hi ItsZippy. I haven't looked at the FAC you suggested on my talk page, but saw that you are trying to get Argument from morality to GA. I've left a comment on Talk:Argument from morality. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - I'd been waiting for some feedback on that. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 19:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

see i think i have completed my task ---zeeyanketu talk to me 19:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, I'll have a look at that later. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 13:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Please give a look ---zeeyanketu talk to me 13:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, ItsZippy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

John F. Lewis (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that your recent decision at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover has received some feedback, and you might want to head over there and take a look. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 07:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Please see! ---zeeyanketu talk to me 07:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Curation update

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.

Done!

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 18:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Done! ---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012


Mediation on Pantheism articles

Hi ItsZippy. I wanted to ask about the presence of an uninvolved party in this mediation, Peter Morell. He seems intelligent, I have no objection to his comments, but when he makes specific requests I think that disturbs your methodical mediation process - eg he is asking us each to define Naturalistic Pantheism - and that should come in the next section.
What's the procedure on that point? What's to stop any number of editors coming in, if one is allowed? Then it becomes more like a DRN than a mediation.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I will speak to him. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again ItsZippy. Re Naturalistic Pantheism - are you waiting for me to launch the section of the mediation about the definition of naturalistic pantheism? It would probably be helpful if you made a short intro asking us each to state their definition/intro and whether we see any way of arriving at an agreed version.
We are dealing here with the very first paragraph of the article.
This section is crucial because Allisgod's claims for the definition are central to

  1. his opposition to mentioning Naturalistic Pantheism in the Pantheism article, and to
  2. his opposition to the World Pantheist Movement being included in the Naturalistic Pantheism article.

We have to deal with it in order to resolve both those issues.
I already know what his viewpoint will be and I suspect that he will stick to it regardless of how much evidence I bring forward, in which case we can then discuss and agree what wider forums could be used.
I hope you understand that my purpose in the Google Books and Google Scholar search counts is not to use them to find specific sources, but to empirically test claims that this or that author or concept are critical to the definition. In the absence of such research, we are left only with rival claims about what "most scholars" say.--Naturalistic (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

hello sir ,i have been contributing on some article and they are almost complete but dont know the procedure for reviewing them for a good article nomination then what to do.Thanx ---zeeyanketu talk to me 09:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zeeyanketu. To get a good article review, you can follow the steps at WP:GAN, under the how to nominate an article section. If you tell me the article you've been working on, I can have a look before hand and let you know if I think it's ready. Also, you don't need to always use the talkback template when you talk to me - they're unnecessary if you are posting on my talkpage, and I am watching your talk page and CVUA page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK,actually the article is (Rowdy Rathore)---zeeyanketu talk to me 19:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks pretty good. I've not read it in depth, but the first thing that springs to mind is that the lead is too short. The lead should summarise the rest of the article, and there should be nothing in the lead that is not in the article, and not major points in the article that are not in the lead. At the moment, the lead seems far too small for the size of the article. I suggest: a paragraph on the plot, cast and characters; a paragraph on the production; and a paragraph on the release and box office. The rest seems ok, but I've not given it a thorough going over (if I have time tomorrow, I'll see if I can give a fuller review, though I might not have time). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then i will work to expand the lead .---zeeyanketu talk to me 16:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you seems to be busy these days.---zeeyanketu talk to me 12:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Philosophy in Malta' page

Hi ItsZippy. Just to inform you that the 'Philosophy in Malta' page has been improved considerably. You had initially given it a Low status. Would you consider revising that? Thanks. --Katafore (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katafore, thanks for your message. I'm not the one who initially rated that page (I've never read it myself); Gregbard was the first to give it that rating. If I have time later I might review it, but I can't promise anything. However, I don't imagine that it will ever be more than low importance - that is not because you've done a bad job, but because knowing about philosophy in Malta is not that important even for an extensive understanding of the subject; I image it would be low importance even if it was written perfectly. Still, the quality rating (that's the one which rates how well the article is written) may certainly improve. If I have time, I'll review it; as I said, I'm pretty busy at the moment so might not get round to it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Much obliged. :) --Katafore (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mentoring

FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Apart from the total edits,How to find the top edited pages by a user and how to create graphs on edit count page.---zeeyanketu talk to me 16:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to your edit count page, you will see instructions for creating month count & top edited pages graphs. To do this, create User:Zeeyanketu/EditCounterOptIn.js and put any content in it, it should then update (you might have to wait a while). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx,I got it.---zeeyanketu talk to me 06:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can i show you example which i have done earlier as they are still protected.---zeeyanketu talk to me 15:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've done it - the extra information is now available. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I havent found any page for speedy deletion still .Can i do it myself with another ip account.---zeeyanketu talk to me 14:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried using the new pages feed? If you are really struggling to find something, let me know and we can move on to the next task. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,I want to move on because it might take some time but if i will find latter then i would like to let you know.Anyway i know facts about CSD So,please move further.Thanx!---zeeyanketu talk to me 19:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problem - we can move on to the next task (you seem to know what you're doing there). The next task might not be there until late tomorrow, though. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

CVUA

Hi. Could you please remove Anderson from the list of graduates (indefinitely blocked sock) - there's no point in any curious person clicking on his name. There won't be any clerking at CVUA in the future, so do continue to watch the pages and update any entries that concern your work there.. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, sorry. I tend not to keep things like that up to date, but I've done it now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray!

Congratulations! I know you've worked very hard on this for a long time. My hat's off to you. – Quadell (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you very much. I think that was one of the first articles I started working on when I arrived here, so I am very pleased. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for nomination for Adminship

Hello, I really wish to be reviewed for adminship as I feel I'm ready for more responsibility. I'm not going to lie, in the past few weeks or so I've had a few run ins with some admins and kind of acted like a baby, but I've put all of that behind me and I really want to do all I can to help out more here on WikiPedia. If you could review me and [if you feel I'm ready] nominate me for adminship, it'd be greatly appreciated, thank you so much, Djjazzyb (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, you probably need a bit more experience before running for adminship. I'm not one to put too much emphasis on edit count (I passed with fewer edits that was average), but you've only got about 800, which for many people at RfA is far too few. Additionally, there are certain areas where you need more experience to get the hang of how things work - I notice you've had some issues with copyright, and someone had to talk to you about removing AfD notices. While it seems you have the right kind of attitude, I think you need to spend some more time as a regular editor getting more experience; come back in about 6 months and I'd love to have another look at where you're at. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well thanks anyway, I'll come back when I've more experience. Djjazzyb (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Curation newsletter

Hey ItsZippy. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CVUA

Hi ItsZippy. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved with Counter-Vandalism, and may still be. The Academy project has been restructured, placing responsibility for it on the trainers themselves and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is still interested in remaining as active trainers.

In future, there will be no clerking or coordination, so If you are still active and can respond to requests from students within around 48 hours, you need do nothing until a new student contacts you on your talk page. Nevertheless, if your status changes, please update your entry on the table of active trainers at the new WP:CVUA page. If you no longer have sufficient time to commit to the CV training project, that's fine, but please remove your name from the active list. While on your travels however, should you come across users who are having a hard time with their reverts, don't hesitate to send them a link to the CVUA. Thanks, and happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Talkback

Hi zippy,how are you doing?Seems busy! ---zeeyanketu talk to me 19:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm good thanks! Yes, I am very busy (can you tell!?!) - I'm off to university on Sunday, so there's lots to do. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might be busy in coming days so its better to watch past five days.My real name is "Rahul Chauhan".May i know your name if you dont mind.Thanx---zeeyanketu talk to me 16:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll do that. I leave for university tomorrow, so it might take a little while to get your final exam posted (and, if I get it done this evening, it'll take time for me to mark it) - thank you for your patience. And you can call me Jack (I'm surprised I forgot to introduce myself personally earlier - sorry about that). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! thanx Jack Smith. and i wish you all the best for you studies and administratorship.---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution RFC

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Talkback

You can tell me to do whatever you think is appropriate.Anyways, all the best for your university begining,By the way which course you choose at university.Thanx---zeeyanketu talk to me 17:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recently nominated a page for deletion and it has been deleted now.See here *[3].---zeeyanketu talk to me 07:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon on back to the Teahouse!

It's easier than ever to be a Host at the Teahouse
Hi ItsZippy! The Teahouse has recently went through some design changes in order to improve it's usability for new editors and for our Hosts. As a former Host, we'd love to see you back. A few changes have taken place about hosting:
  • A new and improved Host Lounge which features calls to action and resources.
  • A simplified Host sign up process. It just takes a few simple steps to add your new profile to our new Host profile page.
  • Concerned about how much time you have to contribute? Don't be. With our new automated Host check in system Hosts can feel less pressure to participate outside of their volunteer capacity - only participate when you want.
  • Teahouse invitations are currently automated! We encourage you to keep inviting, but, there is no pressure or quotas as HostBot does the task for the you.

I hope you'll come back and join us, your skills at making new editors feel welcome and appreciated are invaluable to the Teahouse, and the Wikipedia community. See you there! EdwardsBot (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Invitation to comment on notability discussion in Afd

Hi, I was thrilled with your clear and objective argument you've provided in the past. I thought you would be able to provide valuable insight on this Afd discussion SEOmoz.org Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ItsZippy&oldid=519757238"