User talk:ItsZippy/Archive 6

Eoin Wearen
Re the deletion nomination - he is playing his first pro game as I write - see ref given in article.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah right, thanks for that - I hadn't spotted the reference. I'll withdraw the nomination. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Lena Cruz
Your comment is self-contradictory -, and (edit) shoulld should probably be revised. Dru of Id (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks - I meant to write keep. I'll fix that now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of NO DADA NO KKR
why is my page deleted inspite of the  fact that i gave many references  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virinchi523 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not delete the page - it was deleted by Acalamari; I see you have taken it up on his talk page. I requested deletion because I believed that there was no content in the article. It was recently restored and moved to your userspace; it can be found at User:Virinchi523/NO DADA NO KKR and is pending review.

ok thankss for the reply   can  you  help me on how to  make this a wiki article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.69.1 (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srobak
Many thanks for correcting my blunder. memphisto 21:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem; glad I could help. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Moladah
Hey ItsZippy, just wanted to ask why you put that my new page, Moladah, needed additional citations. There are 4 primary sources and 3 secondary. Just like to know why. Thanks! JZCL (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi JZCL. I tagged the article because most or all of the sources provided seem to be from the Bible itself. While that is probably ok in this case to establish facts, it cannot establish notability, and reliable third-party references are needed. I do not know what the last two sources - GTT and LOB - refer to. If you could clarify that, it might help to resolve the issue. To really establish notability, you would need to provide sources from theological studies or works, which pay significant attention to Moladah. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Prosperity Theology again
Hi, I hope you had a pleasant holiday season and that all is well with you. Things have been going well on my end, I got a couple more "unconventional" religious leader articles up to Good Article status. The 2nd peer reviewer that I tried to line up for Prosperity Theology backed out, so if you still want to try for Featured article, feel free to nominate it at your leisure. I'll be right beside you, I'm trying to start reviewing more at FAC--it's quite an education! Mark Arsten (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Mark, great to hear from you. I have had a good Christmas, thanks; I hope yours was good too. That sounds really good; I will nominate the article for FAC soon and let you know on the Prosperity Theology talk page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just saw the nomination, it looks good. Also, we're allowed to put a little hook at the beginning of the nomination, doing so might help draw in reviewers. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ohio high school mock trial
Please explain your reasoning for the "primary sources" tag from Ohio high school mock trial because according to WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. The statements on this page are based on the source listed, and any person could verify this by looking in the source, or even by going to a mock trial--Jackstormson (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Hi Jackstormsom. I agree that the current use of the primary sources in the article is acceptable; I placed the tag on the page because the article uses only primary sources. This may give a non-neutral view and also does not address the notability concern I had with the article. I do not think that the primary sources provided need to be removed, just that some reliable, third-party sources need to be added to the article. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
SarahStierch (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

All My Loving Dispute Resolution
Why did you close this dispute resolution request?NimbusWeb (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC) My point was that the whole 'musical structure' section was deleted. Soem of its referenced components were very simple information about key and chord structure which the guidelines requireNimbusWeb (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there, NimbusWeb. I closed the DRN discussion you posted for two reasons. Firstly, consensus was established on the talk page of the article in question - the only issue you raised, that it went against the WP:SONG guidelines, was incorrect. In addition, the dispute is by no means appropriate for the DRN at this stage: DRN should be used when extensive discussion has failed to produce a consensus, which was not true in this case. If you feel that some issues still need discussing, you are more than welcome to raise them on the article's talk page. However, unless and until consensus supporting your position is established, I suggest you leave the article as it is. Thanks for talking to me about the issue; if you have any further problems, just drop me a note. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you explanation of how the consensus wasn't against the guidelines was superficial. You removed referenced information about the musical characteristics of two songs including their structure (verse, chorus, bridge and key). There was no attempt by you to be constructive and suggest which items could remain. Instead on All My Loving you removed the entire section.NimbusWeb (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, by shutting down the dispute resolution discussion so rapidly what you did was make it less likely that a wider range of editors and hence a broader consensus could develop. So in effect you ensured the contentious consensus remained confined to the small group who were initially involved. How is this good, transparent governance?NimbusWeb (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I closed your DRN discussion because, when you posted it, there was consensus at the talk page. If you want further discussion, you are more than welcome to carry on at the talk page; there is no need to split the discussion up and move it over to the DRN unless there is actually an irresolvable dispute. This is not irresolvable; indeed, the amount of productive discussion taking place at the moment demonstrates that talk page discussion is sufficient for now. I'm not trying to influence the consensus and am pleased to see that some alternative opinions are being presented at the moment. I suggest that you continue to participate in the discussion under way on the talk page. I have made my position clear now, and shall make no further comments regarding the issue here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiAlerter
Hey ItsZippy, sorry for taking a while to get back to you. I've added you to the WikiAlerter approved users list. If you have any issues or questions please let me know. - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I appreciate it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

my new page
hello  ;   i just created a new version of ndnkkr page  kindly have a look  and  give me your suggestions iam having problems uploading the vidoes   so  could you kindly  update me on that  i have many more bideos /pics    for  verification will be posting them once the page is  accepted kindly guide me further this is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/No_Dada_No_Kkr Virinchi523 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll have a look at the article now for you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)