User talk:ItsZippy/Archive 20

Harold Camping
Hey Zippy, just to let you know that ABC News and the Associated Press is reporting that Camping did die. I saw your note over at RfPP and just wanted to let you know. Thanks. --   LuK3      (Talk)   17:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I've removed the full protection and restored the indefinite semi-protection the article had before. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

IP blocking
I've blocked 185.5.67.130 - the warning may be stale but it's a static IP with a long history of vandalism and warnings. My reading of policy is that blocks are called for in such a situation. I hope you aren't going to be terribly annoyed by my action here. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, no problem - I almost blocked myself. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. There was almost certainly going to be more vandalism - that's always my personal guideline. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Islam and Sikhism
Hi fellow editor. There appear to be two major protagonists on this article who are deleting the references on the article. I like you do not care for which ever version, but I am keen to avoid an edit war. Is there a possibility that the two editors in question (this one and this one are the same editor? Thanks S H 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Sikh-history.It is a possibility that those two editors are the same person, but far from certain. It is entirely plausible that these are two editors with similar interests. You are welcome to look for further evidence yourself (look at the kinds of things they're doing to articles, the way they write, their use of edit summaries, etc etc) and open an SPI case if you have reason to suspect sockpuppetry. Until then, I would suggest you try to engage the editors in discussion on the article's talk page (it may be that getting them to discuss the issues with you is a useful way lf determining whether they are the same person or not. Let me know if you have any problems. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try my best. Thanks S H 17:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Problems again on that article. I'm trying my best but there's an editor who's just doing mass reverts and deletion of referenced stuff. It's difficult to work on. The editor in question lacks WP:Competence. I've tried to engage him. Can you help? Thanks S H 19:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit war Eighth Army (United Kingdom)
Hi Just interested in how you came about to suggest this was an edit war/content dispute and not vandalism ? , vandalized version. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're right - that was an error of judgement on my part - I've changed in to semi-protection. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I see the accounts now blocked.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
  philosophy of religion

Thank you for quality articles in philosophy of religion, such as Prosperity theology, for the project's template and sidebar, for mediating and seeking dispute resolutions, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 355th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

TEDxESCP
Hi Zippy, you nominated TEDxESCP for a speedy deletion a couple of years ago. The article still has zero useful content. I'm not sure about the protocols of nominating an article for regular deletion. Several people on the talk page agree it's time to delete. Please advise. Thanks Span (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Span, thanks for your message. If you want to propose an article for deletion, you should nominate it at Articles for Deletion. Instructions on how to nominate an article can be found here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks Span (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

New Labour
Hi, I've opened a discussion on the above article's talk page that may be of interest to you. Thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Admin candidate
Hey I was wondering if you can help guide me if I myself or another editor (HistoryofIran) who has contributed greatly in my view can be a candidate for being an administrator? Please feel free to respond in my talk page or here if you like. By the way historically speaking I am an MD from New York. I have created a few articles on medicine and really like to focus on expansion of medicine in Wikipedia. I also like historical articles and you can see the list of articles I have made in my page. Thanks Dr. Persi (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Dr. Pepsi. I'm afraid I am very busy at the moment, so I'm not sure I'll have time to evaluate your contributions. There are plently of others who will be willing to, though (here's a list) - best of luck. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review for David Malet Armstrong
Hi ItsZippy,

Hope you are doing well. I've just submitted a peer review request for David Malet Armstrong. I'm not sure if your interest in philosophy extends to contemporary Australian naturalist metaphysicians with a penchant for clear writing but if it does, it would be really helpful if you could provide some feedback via the peer review process. Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Strong keep - Dr. PremRaj Pushpakaran's profile
Strong keep - Dr. PremRaj Pushpakaran's profile is highly notable in India. India is already hideously under-represented in WikiBios. Such articles should be encouraged. Dr. PremRaj Pushpakaran, despite heading some of the most famous US universities like Harvard, had a distinguished academic career as teacher and scientist. True notable people like him always seem to be left out on Wiki! because the person has received significant coverage in reliable sources as a philanthropist; hence the topic passes for publishing.The subject is clearly notable from the sources (URLs) listed.The sources as references, which I've checked, are more than enough to rescue the article. Individual claims are a matter of normal editing. The sources (URLs)provided can be briefly quoted if more is needed.I urge very strongly to keep the article. As a person of article, he has already earned enough to be in the pages of Wikipedia by now. Remember, Wikipedia is not a pulp newspaper that keeps deleting or 'forgetting' articles as someone just feels like.Those who want to recommend this page to be deleted have neither a vision about Wikipedia nor an idea about the very reasons why the page should be there. It is not because the person has become a 'superstar human being' or an eternal soul, but due to the very viral NOTABILITY he aquired (and continues to aquire) through his calibre. He has singlehandedly strived, succeeded and proved that it is possible to contemplate and execute such research projects for humanity.

modified as below

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticles_for_creation%2FPrem_Raj_Pushpakaran

Problem of religious language TFA
Just to let you know that I've chosen this as the TFA for Today's featured article/September 12, 2014 - if you get a chance to look over the blurb / article before then, that would be appreciated. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 22:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "The problem of religious language considers whether it is possible to talk about God meaningfully if the traditional conceptions of God as being incorporeal, infinite, and timeless, are accepted." - a great topic for the Main page. Article and choice (and to-the-point annoucement):  precious  again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to drop you a note to let you know how much I enjoyed this fine article. Very, very well done on getting a proper intellectual topic onto the main page for a change. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I also want to add my thanks for the work you do. Getting articles about abstract and abstruse topics to FA status is particularly difficult but particularly valuable work. I'm really impressed to see this on the front page and that you've got similar articles to a high standard. Best wishes, MartinPoulter (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  philosophy of religion

Thank you for quality articles in philosophy of religion, such as Prosperity theology, for the project's template and sidebar, for mediating and seeking dispute resolutions, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 355th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)