User talk:ItsZippy/Archive 11

Deathlaser
Please take him off the autopatrol. Most of his articles are like Annona incana and this. He's a kid and evidently isn't fluent in English. His articles have multiple errors whether its faulty link or just basic bad spelling and grammar.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I've been monitoring him for a few days; I don't think I should have given it in the first palce, which was a lapse of judgement on my part. Sorry for any difficulties I've caused. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So, I m not good enough. You don't want "kids" on wikipedia. In that case, I will leave. No clean-starts or anything. I will just leave.In addition from now on I will speak like a general teenager.-- Deathlaser : Chat  17:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wat r u doin (like this)!-- Deathlaser : Chat  17:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deathlaser, I did not remove the right because you are a teenager, I removed it because a number of the article you created had significant problems. I regret that you feel bad, though I understand why you would - I apologise for giving it you in the first place and causing this trouble. If you really want to leave over this, that's up to you, but I would encourage you to keep up the good work you've been doing to build this encyclopedia - regardless of the userrights you have, it is appreciated. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good 4 u.-- Deathlaser : Chat  17:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't really concern me if you were an 11 year old. Its not because of your age, its because you are creating articles with very basic spelling mistakes, grammar errors, writing in note form and occasionally dead links in references like the other day. Sorry, we encourage you to write on wikipedia but we also expect a minimum standard of writing which I don't think you're yet capable of so shouldn't have auto patrol rights.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will get my revenge, some day.-- Deathlaser : Chat  18:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blofeld is expecting that, as you can tell by his talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's quite fair to say that ItsZippy is opposed to young people using Wikipedia, since, by his own account, he's a teenager. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Does wikipedia have a sub-page limit.-- Deathlaser : Chat  18:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You persist Death Laser in seeing everything as a personal confrontation. Again it is not a confrontation or anything personal, simply the fact you are creating articles with multiple basic errors and were on autopatrol which is intended for editors who can be trusted to not do so.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok,ok, I calmed down.-- Deathlaser : Chat  18:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hio!
Is User:Thine Antique Pen/Articles Created 3 better than User:Thine Antique Pen/Articles Created? Also, could you take a look at my CSD log? Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 20:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The newer one looks nicer, I think. Your CSD log is looking good - I see JohnCD commented on you A1 and A3 tags, which looks like sound advice. Other than that, you're generally doing well. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay! Thanks! --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 20:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, another thing. Could you take a look at my recent edits? Are they better than I was earlier this year? --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 12:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My Userpage
I've Dr. Blofeldied it, LOL. Take a look at it now. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 18:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious language
Sorry for the delay, but I looked at the section you mentioned on my talk page, it seems to read fine to me. Hope exams are going well! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm glad it works; it has the potential to be incredibly convoluted and unhelpful. And thanks - exams aren't going too badly; revision is just so boring. I'm done next Thursday, though! ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

User Thine
Care to put him on autopatrol, the log is getting massive and they're all fine! if he botches up in future he can always go back like Deathlaser was.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My recent articles are much better like Mechanical pest control, I don't need autopatrolled, but I was just wondering if I am a better editor right now.--Deathlaser (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems User: Keilana has done it already. I'm slightly concerned that this will cause undue drama (as the length discussion at WP:PERM is illustrating) - I think a full community discussion is now desirable to finally resolve whether Thine's topic ban for requesting permissions should remain and, if it does, whether it also excludes others from nominating him. I fear that this will not get resolved by different people repeatedly nominating, granting and the revoking Thine's autopatrolled. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * MBisanz is okay with it though. :) Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

He has yeah. But the editor is so darned passionate its difficult to deter him! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My only response is: Mwhahahaha. :D --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Eurg, it's disappointing how much drama your rights cause, TAP. Personally, I support your autopatrolled - you seem to have matured over the last month and are now a constructive editor, not to mention the deluge of articles you've created. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that this is over - Keilana's decision was far from unanimous and there'll be those who still want it removed. I'd really like some kind of full community discussion about your topic ban, otherwise, I'm worried we'll end up going round in circles over it for some time to come. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Many who don't support it all seem like the same editor to me. I've emailed you. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, there was an AN discussion this morning (US time) closed as too early for discussion, but it was specifically a proposal to lift TAP's topic ban. I do think this should be discussed, and if another admin thinks my decision to give TAP autopatrolled needs review, I'd of course welcome a public discussion on AN or ANI or wherever. Let's minimize drama...that was my goal in the first place. Keilana | Parlez ici 20:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that discussion. I understand the desire to minimise drama - for now, perhaps it's ok. However, I can't see this lasting (maybe I'm just pessimistic). I think that, if someone revokes the right again, or considering discussion begins again, a final comment at AN or RFCU would be useful. For now, maybe we're fine - if this finally calms it down, I'll be happy. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I'd almost prefer that to create a more clear picture of the community's stance. We've already had an issue where some editors (can't remember who off the top of my head) were upset that others were requesting autopatrolled on TAP's behalf - this says to me that there needs to be clarification on whether or not TAP is allowed to obtain rights even if he does not request them, if there is another kerfuffle. (sorry for the ridiculous run-on sentence) Keilana | Parlez ici 20:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree - and I believe that's probably more important that the topic ban itself. TAP has not requested any rights since he was banned from doing so; it has been numerous requests from other editors that have caused issues. As we've said, there's no point in having a long discussion if this has finally calmed down; if further problems develop, I think a discussion on these issues would be helpful. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see we're on the same page; let's get back to writing an encyclopedia now. I find drama to be far less enjoyable than research and writing. :) Keilana | Parlez ici 20:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Time to find some stubs to make! Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 20:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's worth avoiding some confusion here, if the issue does arise again. Far as I can work out, there is no community-opposed ban on TAP asking for rights. There is an agreement he entered into with an individual admin in order to get unblocked. That admin (MBisanz) pretty much explicitly said, later, that if patrollers want TAP to have a particular right, he (MBisanz) has no objection. That in turn entails that the restriction on TAP does not affect others proposing him for rights.

Of course, the community may choose to impose a stricter limitation on his edits than the original agreement stipulated; but initiating a discussion with that as a proposal, doesn't seem especially helpful, for the reasons you've already suggested. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification - I had wondered. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Porscia Yeganeh
has asked for a deletion review of Porscia Yeganeh. 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. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  09:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Sarah (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

G11
My Cambridge Mercantile Page has been deleted for unambiguous advertising or promotion. Can you please explain to me what exactly was the main issue with the page and what I should remove from it in order to be restored. Thanks Dcapland (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Dana
 * Hi there, Dcapland. I deleted your article because it seemed very promotional - if you want to create it again, you will have to deal with this problem. The key to this is neutrality: you need to describe the company without supporting it or endorsing it in any way - just describe what is it and what it does. It is also a good idea to find reliable, independent sources for your information which will give you some idea as to how to present the article. As a starting point, reading WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO will give you helpful advice. I suggest you start by creating a userspace draft which will allow you to work on the article more slowly and get advice before publishing it as a full article. If you would like, I can restore the deleted article into your userspace so that you can work to improve that, rather than stat from scratch - let me know if  want me to. If you need any help with improving the article, just let me know and I'd be more than happy to help. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Moq (library) article deletion
Why was this page deleted? I guess that it's been confonded with the other MOQ page with which you might yourself be more familiar. I don't think they should exclude eachother though. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.30.33.57 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I deleted the article Moq (library) because of this deletion discussion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please restore it so I can fix the page into not endorsing the company thanks! Dcapland (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Four
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!


 * Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!

Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!


 * What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
 * ....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
 * Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement
 * 409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
 * Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
 * New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.


 * Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
 * New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:
 * Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
 * Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
 * Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
 * Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.

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. Sarah (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
 * Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.

Cambridge Mercantile Group
can you please restore my article? I completely changed it yet it got deleted again. tell me how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcapland (talk • contribs) 17:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What I wanted to fix for the Cambridge Mercantile Group page is just to include an about us, history, and specific services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcapland (talk • contribs) 13:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

DRN case
Am I authorized to re open the case:because the board I initially placed in under "can also be used for resolving simple disputes regarding conduct or content." The case falls under the category of conduct and should be appropriate for this noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.35.69 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The page you posted that case on - the dispute resolution noticeboard is only for disputes about the content of the page (the banner at the top says that); I don't know where you got the quotation about it being for conduct disputes too. As I said when closing, if you wish to pursue the issue, go to WP:ANI. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious language
It looks like a really good article - I just think that the title was too broad for the specialized topic. But perhaps you ought to have waited with moving it untill someone else gave their opinion too? I didn't mean to force you to move it if you think that it was at the right title, just to stimulate the discussion. Unless of course you simply agreed with my statement and thought the title I suggested was simply better. Anyway I wish you good luck at FAC with an interesting and well written article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I think you were probably right about the article title, which is why I moved it (though perhaps I was a little hasty). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Contested Prod
Hi - Persian Toon, a page you nominated for PROD back in April, was contested after deletion so I've restored it. As the notability is still doubtful, you may want to take it to AfD.  An  optimist on the  run!  09:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 12:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Deathlasersonline (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Park (band)
Hello. I notice you've A7'ed Park (band) as a non-notable musical ensemble. However, this band meets WP:MUSIC. The band's Allmusic page lists an extensive biography, as well as several releases on Lobster Records; this meets WP:MUSIC on its own, but I also have several other reviews which further substantiate the band's importance (,, , and others). Can you please restore it? Chubbles (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry about that - I've restored the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Deathlasersonline (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for copyedit of Religious language
Hey - as you've noticed, we have a backlog at the guild of copyeditors. I'm currently involved with a couple of articles, so I probably won't be able to help. But I wanted to take a look, and saw that you recently changed the name - relist the article under the new name! Don't despair with us! I assume the new name is Religious language problem? Don't hesitate to contact copyeditors directly via the guild's members list. Sorry, I probably won't be able to do it myself. ʝungle jill  22:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Singer
Hi ItsZippy,

I'm going to have a full read of religious language in the next day or so and try and find some intelligent and useful things to say at FAC.

I was wondering, I haven't really got involved in writing either GAs or FAs, or really contributing to philosophy articles: I had a bit of a brainwave today about getting Peter Singer to GA. I've already started making some improvements both to the main article and to some of the related articles (Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Animal Liberation (book) etc.) as I read various sources on and by Singer. Any advice or pointers on going for GA? Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Tom. The Singer article looks ok: at a glance, it seems well sourced, broad enough in scope, and written reasonably well. I'll have a read sometime next week and give you my more detailed views (by about Wednesday, if I can). Looks like an article worth pursuing, though. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead
I can't write a GA lead, too hard!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the reality will be that it won't become a Good Article. ⇒ T A  P  10:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
⇒ T A  P  11:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Deathlasersonline (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Deathlasersonline (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Authority Control Integration
Hi, I've been researching the intersection of Wikipedia and Authority Control, and have just recently made a Village Pump Proposal to create a bot to expand the usage of a template. I've identified you as someone in the sphere of interest to this project and would appreciate your input at the Village Pump. Thanks, Maximiliankleinoclc (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

 * We have too many vandal-fighters, in fact there are so many, some of them are asked to go away!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We'd love to have you! You don't need to be a full-time vandal fighter. I clearly see that you have a lot to offer and we would all love to have you! You clearly have a lot to offer and we really want to have you on board. I think our students would benefit greatly from an Admin-Instructor. Please join us! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, you don't need to use all of the tools. Some of our instructors don't use anything but Rollback! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Using Huggle allows you to revert vandalism at a rate 20X faster rate, V.sniper will be even faster as it's 1-click. But every-one thinks I am traitor!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the CVUA! We're very happy to have you as one of our instructors! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Gove and the royal yacht
Hey! I reverted your edit to this removing the section as I felt there probably needed to be a bit more discussion about it (and more specifically because there are, tbh, a shed load of sources about it). I've started that on the article talk page. You could well be right about it needing to go btw - I just wasn't sure. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem - I am happy to discuss this. I have to go out now; I'll post something (hopefully a compromise) on the talk page tomorrow. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got a message!
Chip123456 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

RFA
Hi! I am having my RFA in September (after I get 7-8K edits) and would like to get an Administrator to nominate me. I have already received 3 requests if people can be my nominator, but I would like an Admin as well. I was originally having TParis, but after he gave me feedback, he went on a Wikibreak, so I would like you to please help me with my RFA. Thank you, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Hi Electriccatfish. I would certainly be willing to consider nominating you for adminship. I'd like to have time to review your contributions before making a decision, so I'll try to get in touch sometime this week. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! I have responded on my talk page. Also, you are under no obligation to grant rollback to any student. Instructors inform the student when they think that the student is ready for rollback, but its the admin's decision, and you reserve the right not to grant it. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied there. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi, ItsZippy! Usually Dan will send a welcome, but he hasn't so.....

Welcome to the CVUA! It is a pleasure to welcome you on behalf of Dan and Achowat (coordinators) and the rest of the academy team to the CVUA. When a student becomes available, they will be assigned to you. Your help would be appreciated at the enrolment page, WT:CVUA and WP:CVUAQ, when you are not busy, to sort out queries, etc and please add them to your watch list. I don't know if I've come across you in the past, and I'm unsure if others in the academy have, so it will be great to get to know you. Do you have any queries? Thank you and Good luck! --Chip123456 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On behalf of the CVU academy myself, Achowat, (Co-coordinators) and Theopolisme (deputy coordinator welcome you to training budding anti-vandals. It is reccomended that you watchlist: Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Status,Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Enroll, ourmain talk page, and ourquestions page. Also, make sure you readCounter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Instruction_methods. Cheers, Dan653 (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

File Mover permission question
Hi Zippy, i just wanted to ask a question. Doesn't the criteria on File Mover permissions kinda penalise (i hope that's how you spell that) the people who rename clearly in the first place and request File Mover for when they need it or so they can clean up renamed files without going through the other way? Just wanting to know your thoughts on this. Thanks and have a nice day  J e n o v a  20 15:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Jenova. I understand what you mean, though the file mover permission is more for people want to clean up files that other people have uploaded with bad names. It's not so much for your own files (because you probably won't need to rename you own), but for dealing with poor names from other users. Other administrators might feel differently, so you could ask someone else their opinion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's Ok, it just didn't make a lot of sense to me but i certainly see your point.
 * Thanks a lot for the reply and have a good day  J e n o v a  20 15:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:PERM
I don't know if you like to close these things, but if you don't mind do think you could close Grizzly's rbk request, you can see why it won't go through with the link I left. It would put the instructors mind at peace, since he was just blocked for personal attacks. Dan653 (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, Keilana got there two seconds before me. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed, but what a mess that whole thing was. If your curious, it's an interesting conflict: Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy. Dan653 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been following the conflict (though not in great detail). I guess that these are the kinds of things that we'll have to deal with in the academy. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Great job on the Ontological Argument Page
The Ontological Argument page is really looking great. If you get time could you try to clean up the Existence of God page. It's lacking a lot of relevant info, citations, and organization. I just added a section for the 5 Ways of Aquinas because it really surprised me that they weren't present, given their predominance in the debate over the existence of God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polsky215 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks, Polsky. Existence of God has been on my mind for quite a while; I've always put it off because it requires so much work. I might have a look at what I can do to it over the next few weeks; anything you can do would be much appreciated. I think we need to decide on how the article should be structured first - it's hard to do anything else before we do that. Do you have any suggestions? Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ) when writing on talk pages. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Btw I also added a short section on the ontological proof because once again there wasn't anything on one of the most famous arguments. This leads me to my idea of how to organize the page. Right now it seems to be all the unique arguments of which people can think and little to any coverage of the arguments which belong in an encyclopedia due to their historical importance. Thus, I think it could be good to have two main section (pro and contra), each containing subsections on the important arguments. Then have one subsection at the end of each main section which lists all the other random arguments with their short summaries. Not sure if this is clear at all... Hope it can help. Thanks. --Polsky215 (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So a section containing all the arguments for, and one for all the arguments against? I think that sounds like a good idea. I do think that the philosophical problems and conclusions sections that are already there should be kept (though there is considerable room for improvement), just because the scope of the article is 'existence of God', not 'arguments about the existence of God'. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Also I've only mentioned the big arguments for the existence of God, but for the other side I definitely think there should be a section for the Problem of Evil and the Problem of Divine Hiddeness (and any others you can think of) because they are similar to the 5 Ways of Aquinas and the Ontological argument for historical importance. However, I don't know enough on these to write a sufficient section (just what I learned from Brothers Karamazov). --Polsky215 (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. I know a reasonable amount about the problem of evil, and will research divine hiddenness. I slightly shortened the section on Aquinas' Five Ways, just because it was quite long and I didn't think ir needed so much detail (you can probably go into more detail on the five ways article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm watching this page. I think the five ways section looks fine being shorter. I put in links to articles which take on the individual arguments in depth. So there isn't need to go too far on the Existence of God page. I put in the rest of the Church Criticism section on the Kantian ethics page if you want to take a look. --Polsky215 (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw your changes to existence of God, which look fine. I'll take a look at Kantian ethics now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

CVUA
Hi! Can you please take ? He want to learn how to use Twinkle. Than you, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC).
 * No problem. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sock?
I know you need checkuser rights to make sure, but do you think the 90. ip and fishing are socks: User_talk:Ebikeguy? Dan653 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any comments on the current spi of Fishingking? Dan653 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
--Anderson9990 (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Article you just deleted
Hey man I'm one of the people who was working on an article that you recently deleted and I understand why you deleted it but in the future can you just leave a few comments in the talk page or something just briefly explaining your decision to delete the article? I think the editors of deleted articles would greatly appreciate being able to understand your reasoning. Thanks. Wovermeer (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Wovermeer. I deleted the article because of this deletion discussion, where the consensus was that the article was not notable and not supported with reliable sources. I sometimes leave a rationale when I close a deletion discussion as delete, though I didn't think it necessary in this case; I apologise if I didn't fully explain, and I hope you understand why the article was deleted. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Also I'm just curious how long do you have to be a member/ what do you have to do so that you can delete stuff? Wovermeer (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Electriccatfish2 (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Autopatroller rights for TBrandley
Hi there. I was a little surprised to see that you have granted autopatroller rights to. He has had a habit of creating poorly sourced articles. In fact, I have warned him on several times in the last 5 weeks about this:, ,. Take a look at these recent article creations: ,,,, , , and , which he left unsourced for 16 days, despite my reminders. In addition, at least 20 articles he created were speedy deleted or went through AfD earlier this year. (See RfC here.) While the quality of his work is definitely getting better, in my opinion, he is not ready for this right. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right - I should not have given that user autopatrolled rights, that was an oversight on my part. I have removed them for now, and left a note on the user's talk page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page Archiving
Yeah, it's very annoying. How can I get it to archive my page every week? Thank you, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC).
 * I've changed the age parameter on your talk page to 168 - that is the time in hours ClueBot will leave an inactive thread before archiving. You had that at 7 - I expect you thought that it meant days - it will now wait a week before archiving a thread. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for New Labour
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

CVUA
It is quite hard doing the CVUA when you are in the UK and i am in New Zealand.--Anderson9990 (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not ideal, you're right. Hopefully, the nature of the course will mean that the time different won't be too much of a problem - I will try to give tasks that you can so while I'm not around (probably sleeping!). Also, I am online almost every day, so I will be able to answer questions regularly enough - if there is anything urgent, you can find someone in you own timezone to help. I know it's not a perfect arrangement but, if you're happy, I think we make it work. By the way, your answer to the first task was good; there's another waiting for you now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify a GOCE request
Hi, ItsZippy, please can you clarify your copy-edit request at the GOCE request page? The request is for Religious language, which is a disambiguation page linking to two articles, Sacred language and Philosophy of religious language. Which do you wish copy-edited? Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Baffle gab. I'd like problem of religious language copyedited, please. There's been a bit of confusion with page moves recently, but I think it's staying at that. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries; I'll drop a note onto the GOCE page. Thanks for getting back to me. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again; I'm now starting the copy-edit. Please feel free to contact me, correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. I'm sorry you've had to wait a while for the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - please feel free to contact me about any ongoing issues with the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Grizzyly1110
Ideally, I think it would've been best if you had gotten him after Dan closed it, but Morning277 (who hasn't had a student yet) requested him. I left Morning a note on his talk page to see if he would give you Grizzly. If he is willing to, than he's yours. Thank you again for all of your help and dedication to our project! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the message. I don't mind either way - if Morning is capable then it'd be good to get him some experience - I just wanted to let you know that I'm willing and able if necessary. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it would be better If Zippy trains this user, for his experience and being an admin. The reason is Grizzyly1110 seems to be a bit enthusiastic in his comments, nothing wrong in that but it needs to be handled in a cool and professional way. (and his contributions shows it would be best for Grizzly if he could be guided for things other than CVUA as well.)(any thoughts ? )-- D Big X ray  15:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think we could centralise this discussion? Can someone post something at the CVUA talk page, please? I'd rather an issue like this be discussed in a central location, for the sake of transparency. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already left a Talkback on Morning's page pointing to this discussion. Lets wait. I think this can be addressed here itself, I don't feel a serious need to move the discussion. -- D Big X ray  17:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No objection with whatever you want to do. I am familiar with the situation which is why I volunteered. However, since you are familiar and eager to do it then you are probably the best candidate. I can assist if needed, but just let me know what you decide to do. Also, I have not received a response from him as of yet so I am not sure if he is still interested. Let me know. --Morning277 (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, sorry I wasn't keeping on top of all of this, but I have a few after the fact comments: (1) By experienced I would have liked someone who already graduated a student or zippy. (2) If morning feels fine, then that's okay too. (3) I agree that we should've put this on a CVUA page for transparency. I made a comment about this before, but I'll say it again, people (should) have the CVUA pages watchlisted, but probably don't have all the instructors userpages watchlisted. (4) Again, if morning feels comfortable then I'm fine and anyway Grizzly hasn't responded yet. Dan653 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First its not a big deal, second All the gentlemen above are ready to let others choose, lets not make it too large an issue, and most important of all we are not even sure if Grizzly really needs it as Grizzly has not replied so far. I have full faith in Morning whose gentle nature will make a fine instructor but  his first trainee should not be Grizzly . The consensus above supports for Zippy. I am done here. -- D Big X ray   13:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Albemarle, North Carolina
I wasn't sure how else to proceed, so here I am. There are two images on Commons that appear to have been uploaded solely for the purpose of trashing the Albemarle page. They are:Image:CrematoryPlayground.jpg and Image:SlavesAtAuction.jpg; both are supposedly awaiting action by ORTS. I think, given their history, both should go sooner than later. I flagged both for deletion over on Commons. Thanks for your time.--Gaarmyvet (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

92.4.184.70
You should not have blocked this IP. WP:BITE and all that, he also used the talk page[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Pakistan&curid=150073&diff=499436887&oldid=498319680]were he explained his edits. It is a pity the same cannot be said for the others involved in the editwar, except the sock of course. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Darkness Shines, thanks for your message. You are right; I'm not sure that this editor's first experiences at Wikipedia have been as good as they could have been - the excessive vandalism warnings for good faith edits were certainly not good. However, they were given a notice about edit warring, and they did violate 3RR. If the user wishes to appeal their block, I would be willing to consider their appeal because of the circumstances. In the meantime, it would be good to see some discussion of the issues which led to the edit war on the talk page. Additionally, if you believe sockpuppets to be involved, please do open an SPI case. Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The sock is already blocked, he is a regular occurrence it this topic area. I have let the IP know you will consider unblocking, I also let him know that his edits were not vandalism at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

3RR
Recently there was an editwar at Dhimmitude, where User:‎Altetendekrabbe and User:Frotz, it seems, both made 4 reverts in less than 10 hours. You only blocked ‎Altetendekrabbe. Please take a look a this report.VR talk  15:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have replied on that page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back. I've listed an additional, more recent revert of Frotz at the page.VR talk  17:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I caught This IP Edit Warring and now he's been Blocked.--Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 01:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

EW
Hi ItsZippy,

I'm a little confused about something you said in a recent report I made at WP:3RRN. You said "Mark Renier is at 3RR but has not violated it: the first diff you provide is his edit, but not a revert." This is contrary to my understanding of 3RR so I'm hoping you can clarify it for me. Here's my problem:


 * 1) A hypothetical editor inserts what I consider to be a bad edit
 * 2) I revert and am now at 1RR, the editor is at 0
 * 3) He reverts me, he is now at 1RR, I am at 2 RR
 * 4) I revert again and he reverted again, I am now at 3RR and he is at 2RR

At this point if I revert again I have breached the line and am worthy of a block while the editor pushing his edit is homesafe. Doesn't this mean that anyone can add text to an article and force it to stay there until a consensus is reached to remove it (assuming someone else doesn't revert it as well), and isn't the norm the opposite, e.g. that there should be a consensus to include an edit when it is disputed rather than a consensus to remove? I am genuinely confused here because I have made more than a few EW reports in situations just like this and you are the first admin to respond with this line of reasoning. Thanks! S Æ don talk 06:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Saedon, thanks for your message. 3RR applies to reverts; in the situation you gave above, you would be at 3, and the other editor at 2. Technically you are right: the editor who inserts something does have somewhat of an advantage. However, if we are editing collaboratively, it should never really reach that point. Ideally, if you see an edit you disagree with, you should revert it and then immediately attempt to start a discussion (that bold, revert, discuss cycle) - that way, it is not about an editor reaching 3RR before another, but about two editors with different views discussing and improving the article. I try to personally stick to 1RR as much as possible because I find it much easier to discuss and issue with an editor if I disagree (and there exist dispute resolution forums if that doesn't work, and procedures for editors who are just being disruptive. 3RR exists as a restraint on editors to prevent edit wars escalating - it is not about on editor having an advantage over another; the point is not about advantages, but about preventing an edit war. Preventing an edit war is the most important thing (more than who has the advantage) because, until then, no collaboration can take place. Ideally, no one should ever approach 3RR because they should start a discussion at 1 revert (and, if an editor is unresponsive, there are steps to follow). So you are right, there is a technical advantage to the editor who makes the first edit, but that should become inconsequential if discussion is begun and consensus found. I hope that makes sense; I'm happy to answer any other questions you have. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Rollback from TruPepitoM
Hi - I'm one of your fellow instructors here in the CVUA, and per Electric's reminders, I finally remembered to come to you about granting rollback to one of my students, TruPepitoM. They have taken a test for me and proven that they have a clear understanding of what vandalism is and isn't, as well as how to warn/report users, have used Twinkle to revert both vandalism and AGF edits, and is a great person to be around (which I think says a lot... namely how they manage to throw the word chocolate into every sentence)... :) Thanks! If you'd be so kind as to ping me on my talk page, that'd be great.  Theopolisme TALK 15:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge Mercantile Group
I left you a message numerous times on your talk page. The Cambridge Mercantile Group page I have previously written has been completely re-written in a new way by somebody else in an unbiased manner. Please read it over so that I could finally publish it. Thanks Dcapland (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Theopolisme TALK 17:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I re-uploaded the new Cambridge Mercantile Group page! Please look at it so it can finally be published http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcapland/Cambridge_Mercantile_Group Many Thanks Dcapland (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * New Labour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Media, Equality, Alistair Campbell and Tabloid


 * Existence of God (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Transcendence and Predicate

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Verfiability RfC
Hi ItsZippy! Thanks for protecting the RfC page, and for your offer of help. Actually, there are a couple of things that I would like some help with. First is something that I probably should have realised before - the mention in Verifiability/2012 RfC of the RfC being advertised at WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals is wrong, as it's not really a new proposal. Could you remove the mention of WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals from the page for me? The second thing is the edit protected request at the bottom of WT:V. If you could have a look at that too, I'd be very grateful. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. I removed the mention of WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals as you requested; Future Perfect at Sunrise answers the edit request. As always, let me know if there's anything else I can do. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 08:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And as usual, there is. :) It turns out that I totally ballsed up the edit request the first time, so I've had to make another. Fut. Perf. might get there first, but if you happen to see this before they do, it would be great if you could fix my stupid mistake. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and Fut. Perf. got there first. :) — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 02:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge Mercantile Group
My article is located here in my sandbox. please review it thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcapland/sandbox Dcapland (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 20:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)