User talk:ItsZippy/Archive 18

Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Throffer

Hey- if you're busy, feel free to ignore, but I know you're interested in philosophical topics- I'm hoping to take throffer to FAC (it's currently under review at GAC) and any critical comments you may have are very welcome. J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but I'm a little busy at the moment, so can't promise much. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work closing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Do_not_feed_the_animals

Thank you very much for your summary as you closed the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Do_not_feed_the_animals discussion. A number of editors put their opinions into play on this, and although I don't personally agree with the details of the result you've clearly made a good compromise, and a well written one to boot. Keep up the good work. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Let me know if you need any help with the follow-up title discussion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I second that entire statement by Dtgriscom. -- 202.124.88.35 (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to request, though, that you try to help the discussion stay on-track per the policies WP:TITLE and WP:TITLECHANGES. -- 202.124.89.1 (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, 4000+ words later I'm about to give up on the follow-up title discussion. It feels like a number of (mostly anonymous) users are dug in on the idea that the article as currently titled is "one of the best-titled articles on Wikipedia", ignoring the strangeness of the complete, imperative sentence as a title, while insisting that WP:WORDISSUBJECT does not apply because the article is (somehow) not specifically about what the title says. Any suggestions? Give up and put my talents elsewhere? Start a dispute resolution process? Thanks... Dan Griscom (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it does seem discussion there is going slowly. Requested moves is a possibility - if that work well, it means you'll get outside opinions from other editors which should hopefully begin to move the discussion forwards. There is always the danger, however, that it just goes the way of the talk page discussion, with lots of opinions from the people who are currently involved and little progress. An alternative is dispute resolution, perhaps at the WP:DRN. This gives the benefit of having experienced volunteers to help sort through the mass of opinion and move the discussion forward, though you're much less likely to get outside opinions, which I think might be useful here. I would probably suggest you try WP:RM first and move to dispute resolution if that fails. I hope that's helpful, let me know how it goes. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 08:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Final warning timing

Hi. I left you a note at WP:AIV, I think you misread the timestamps(?)[1]. Cheers,  Yintan  14:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. I saw the final warning left by another editor which was after the user's most recent vandalism, but missed your final warning from earlier. I've blocked the user now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No sweat. Thanks,  Yintan  14:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Say youngster (I'm 64, so I'd like you teach me a new trick), please educate me. Balti sahib is creating a large number of new userpages. In fact, Balti sahib was created by yet another user. (See: [2].) (I mentioned this on the ANI.) Seems to me a brand new user must give an email, establish a password, etc. to create a new account. And when I tested the idea of creating a new account for myself, the WP page asked me for a "reason". What could the "good reason" be for Balti sahib and Balti's progenitor for creating all these pages? What does this mean in light of WP:MULTIPLE? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Zip, another editor has come to my rescue and provided insight. What I saw as creation of new accounts was actually the creation of new user pages for other editors. So, as my old girlfriend Emily Litella used to say – "Never mind." – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple accounts and edit warring

It seems that a recent block involving User:Superfly94 User:Sticks830 and an IP address should include User:Carly3737 which was the original login as the editor has reverted to their original username. As seen here [3]. 209.121.225.182 (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I missed that. I see Addshore's blocked that account now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kantian ethics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equality (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) 10:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please unblock Sopher99

Hello, would you mind unblocking Sopher99 (talk · contribs) per his unblock request? It's obvious the edit warring will not repeat itself. I'd have unblocked myself, but you left an arbitration enforcement block. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose unblock The last tiem Sopher was blocked he resumed to his old edit warring ways and i think actions speak louder than words. When you add on to that the misrepresentation of sources, the bad formatting and repeated removal of sourced content, violations of WP:DUE WEIGHT and WP:RS, i think the 48 hour block was extremey lenient. Pass a Method talk 00:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to leave the block in place. The developing consensus thus far at WP:AN seems to be support the block (though I know there's not been a lot of participation). I'll leave a more extended rationale in my decline of the request. As always, I am happy to be overruled by the community. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

1RR arbitration for Syrian civil war articles

A request for Arbcom regarding creation of specific Syrian civil war 1RR arbitration tool is issued and if accepted will affect that page and other related pages on Syrian civil war. The issue was previously discussed and recommended by an administrator for Arbcom solution on the issue (see here). As an involved administrator, your opinion is requested, thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Motion proposed regarding the Syrian civil war clarification and amendment request

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that an Arbitrator has proposed a motion regarding a clarification and amendment request in which you were named as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Throffer/archive1

I've gone ahead and nominated it at FAC- if you feel inclined to take a look, any thoughts you may have would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Request for permissions

Hi ItsZippy, as you can see here [4] , you took my reviewer permission away after I requested it. Seeing as I requested its removal "cloud-free", could you restore it? Many thanks, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 09:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately that link seems to not be working, but you can see the action in my logs. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 09:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Done - sorry it took a little while. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Syrian civil war articles

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has passed a motion with respect to a request for clarification and amendment, in which you were named as a party, regarding articles related to the Syrian civil war. Please see the link above for the full text of the motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent granting of reviewer...

Were you aware of this discussion that occured before you returned it? PantherLeapord (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, I missed that - thanks. My fault for not checking thoroughly enough. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
No worries. We all make mistakes! PantherLeapord (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I seem to recall pantherleapord being told to stay the fuck away. Common sense would seem to indicate that includes not appointing yourself my case manager and supervising my user rights. You where told to STOP your harrasment of me, this is simply continuation of that. ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 03:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Retro, that comment is uncivil and uncalled for. You are well aware you're not supposed to be requesting rights right now, and there are a lot of people that have you on their watchlist. Any one of them is likely to approach the granting admin and point them to that conversation. Trying to be sneaky and requesting it in other manners will not be helpful. I suggest you strike your comments above. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Sneaky? This editor has been de facto interaction banned. Making comments regarding another such a user, unless fixing some gross breach of policy, is harrasment. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 16:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not WP:HARASS, and yes, coming here to point out the error was, as you say "fixing a gross breach of policy" - so, PL was right both ways. You were also advised that once the original decision had been made to not return the rights, that going elsewhere was forum shopping and inappropriate. Retro - if you don't want people to point out your errors, then stop making such brutal ones. I would much rather spend my time talking about the awesome things you do, but you make it sooo difficult (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:Kant & Strawson

Strawson was certainly more of a metaphysician than an ethicist, though I've seen him cited in works of moral philosophy. It's possible that he's not written anything of particular note on the subject- if you're not seeing anything, leave it! (As an aside, I sat through a paper on Kant's concept of "radical evil" a few weeks ago; not sure whether a mention of that belongs in the article.) J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Request for amendment of sanctions on Syrian civil war articles

Dear administrator, as an affiliated party in former discussions on amendment of sanctions on Syrian civil war articles, i would like to notify you on motion-resulting discussion at Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN), in order to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. Meanwhile, and for a period of 30 days starting July 21, 1RR sanction shall continue to be applied with any notifications and sanctions to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Elexis Monroe

The new face of DRN: ItsZippy

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 17:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Deletion

Looking at the deletion log, it appears that you are deleting pages at the moment. Could I possibly bother you to delete User:Dudemanfellabra/UpdateNRHPProgress.js? I'm trying to get it quickly deleted in order to leave a comment elsewhere. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Beaten to it by User:JohnCD - seems I was too immersed in my deletion to notice your message. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. I left this message after waiting about 19 minutes since tagging it, and it was deleted after 22. Haha sorry for the bother.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
No worries. There's a larger than usual CSD log at the moment, which is probably why things are moving a bit slower. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

you blocked someone who is spam emailing people

You blocked Stevejobsfan7 for spamming who then emailed me asking I add information about a book, but not mentioning the book in his email. Signed a different user name, but the Wikipedia email always list the actual name of the user sending it. Can you check his settings to keep him from emailing other users through Wikipedia while blocked? Dream Focus 19:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've revoked his email access. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Asking for deletion advice

I'm knew at dealing with Wiki articles, am making my way through the meta wiki pages, and thought I'd start with something easy (a person nobody has heard of) before moving on to more collaborative pages. You rejected the speedy deletion of this page due to it being advertisement, a decision I agree with, however I think the page should be deleted because the majority of it is self promotional. It contains mostly invalid citations – not dead links, but citations that have never linked to relevant content, and links to primary sources that are easily manufactured by the person – to 'prove' the persons experience. I think that once the invalid citations are removed, the person will be unremarkable and meet the 'no indication of importance' criteria for speedy deletion. There are more notes in the Talk section of the page.

Do you have any advice on the course of action to take? Should I remove all unsourced content, and mark it for speedy deletion for having no indication of importance? Or should I remove all unmarked content, and start a deletion discussion? Thanks.

Bibblybobbly (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bibblybobbly, thanks for your message. I'm tempted to agree with you that Stine Richard is probably not notable (I've not done a thorough search for sources, but that's the impression I get from the article). However, I think the article probably does pass the A7 speedy deletion criterion. A7 only requires that a credible assertion of significance is made - this is a far lower standard than notability. The stuff about Holla@Me and some of his music seems to assert some level of significance, so speedy deletion would be inappropriate. I would therefore suggest you open an AfD to get a full discussion (of course, before you do this, I would recommend you spend some time yourself looking for reliable sources that you could add to the article). I hope that all makes sense - let me know if you need anything else. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I've taken your advice and noticed you've responded on the AfD talk page as well - thanks for that too.

Bibblybobbly (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Fettes College article

You put a blcok on edits but what Betty Logan did not tell you is that my source is cited in the talk pages for Fettes College and she did not respond to me. This is the reason for my complaint. If you read the talk page for the Fettes article then maybe you could unblock edits for it. 86.132.241.46 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I protected the article because you kept adding unsourced information to the article after other editors had challenged you. At Wikipedia, verifiability means that a fact can be checked in a reliable source - most often a piece of text (and we have guidelines on what constitutes a reliable source). Therefore, even if what you're adding to the article is true, unless you can provide a source which backs up your claim (a section in a book, a webpage, etc), then it cannot be included in Wikipedia. I protected the article because your repeated addition of this unsourced material was becoming disruptive. I would be happy to unprotect the article, but would need assurance from you that you will only add material to an article which is supported by a source other than yourself. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence material and MOD material is never sourced as you should know. It is highly unlikely that anyone would be able to source this. The only think you can decide on in such cases is a balance of probabilities based on the available body of knowledge as to whether what is claimed could be fact or could be fiction. 86.132.241.46 (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If there are no sources for something, then we cannot include it; a lack of reliable sources does not entitle us to ignore that policy. To make a judgement on the "balance of probabilities" and decide for ourselves what we think is true is specifically prohibited by our policy on original research - I suggest you read through that thoroughly before you continue this discussion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Disputing deleted page MistServer

This morning I noticed a nomination for speedy deletion of the Mistserver page yesterday at 17:00, followed up by deletion at 20:30, which left me unable to object to deletion. I was going to object to the reason for deletion because I do not feel that the page is an advertisement, in fact it is based on and written in the same style used by Wowza Media Server which has been allowed on Wikipedia for months. The previous deletion was due to the nature of the article (written in a non factual matter), so as a hobbyist using the technology I decided to rewrite it, only to see it deleted after only being online for several hours due to advertising. I hope to hear back from you soon regarding the apparent difference between this page and the Wowza page.

HacateKentu (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi HacateKentu, thanks for your message. I deleted the article because I saw a lot of promotional language. Phrases like "lightweight, open-source multi-standard multimedia server developed by DDVTech" and "It bridges the gap between lightweight web servers and the usually heavyweight media servers that support non-HTTP protocols" are not really neutral or suitable for Wikipedia. Having said that, on review, it is not as blatantly promotional other articles that would be deleted are - I was perhaps over-hasty here. However, there was a deletion discussion (here) about a previous version of the article. It concluded that, because there were not enough reliable sources in the article, it was not notable enough for inclusion so was deleted. As your version of the article does not have any additional sources, it ought to be deleted on the same rationale. Therefore, although my deletion for blatant promotion might have been incorrect, the article should remain deleted because of the past discussion. If you would like to create the article, you will need to find a number of reliable sources that will establish notability. I am willing to restore the article and move it into your userspace for your to work on - this will mean that the article is not yet in the main encyclopedia and allows you to work on it until it is ready to be published. Does that sound ok to you? Let me know if you have any further questions. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey ItsZippy, that I can understand. I would appreciate it if you would restore the article into my userspace thereby allowing me to improve the article. Thank you for your time and consideration. If I may be so blunt: when talking about this article having enough notability, are we talking about being named by a more popular site (for example streamingmedia.com) or amount of references? HacateKentu (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Userfied; replied on user's talk page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: User:Dgenx 214's SPI case

Now that both accounts' block expired, should User:Net cust be blocked indefinitely for being an obvious sockpuppet (per WP:DUCK)? Both accounts (including mine) were block because of edit warring and I raised a SPI case regarding Dgenx 214's sock and this should be also resolved. -WayKurat (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That does need to be resolved, you're right, though there's no rush. I don't have time at the moment to thoroughly investigate; I may later on. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Mgandsi

Hello, please eye. User:Mgandsi.- Tamk You.- --Gaard van der Pol (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Erm, that editor has made one edit in the last 3 years. I'm not seeing much reason to "keep an eye" on them. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but the category is not used that.--Gaard van der Pol (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll be reviewing all categories. Best regards.- --Gaard van der Pol (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean. I removed all of the categories because the page is a userpage, not an article. It looks like a fake article, which should probably be deleted. Start an MfD if you want - I'm going to bed but I'll check back tomorrow. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

Process question

Dear ItsZippy,

As you noticed, another editor reported me to the [noticeboard], and you consequently protected the page of the contested article for a period of 4 days. Could you please advise me what the process is in such cases? Who will resolve the dispute, how and when? Best regards, ZBukov (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi ZBukov, thanks for your message. I protected list of state leaders in 2013 because of the dispute on the page. I suggest that you use this time to discuss the issue on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. If you try discussing the issue and get nowhere, various dispute resolution avenues are open to you - I'd suggest either getting a third opinion or filing a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Even when the protection of the page expires, I would advise you to cease editing the page while you are discussing the issue and wait until you reach a consensus before making changes - if you don't do this, you are in danger of edit warring, which can get you blocked. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Tower Transit

Forgive me, but why full protection? Blocking the IP concerned or just semi-protection is far more effective. Full is really just an over-reactance. aycliffetalk 12:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully protected the page because there were autoconfirmed users edit warring too. Mo7838 and CourtneyBonnick were involved in the edit war (and a few other autoconfirmed users had made a few edits), so full protection was the only way to prevent them all from editing. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Well block them then!! CourtneyBonnick has just come off a week-long ban for edit warring and obviously needs longer off. Block the IP as well. I still stand by my statement that full-prot is too much. aycliffetalk 12:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that either blocks or protection would have been appropriate in this situation. I opted to protect the page because, although there were three main people involved, there were other users who were also making edits to the disputed area of the article. Thus protection stops anyone from editing the article and should hopefully prompt discussion. If specific editors continue edit warring continues after protection expires, then a block will be appropriate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for bringing this to a resolution. The problem has been created by 2.125.70.81 (who has only been posting since 29 August) refusing to engage in any discussion, either on their or the article's talk page. A number of users have warned about edit warring with no effect. CourtneyBonnick and I are having the same problems with 2.125.70.81 on Arriva London and Metroline, hopefully the user will get the message and we can all move on.Mo7838 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)