User talk:ItsZippy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Vandalism warning

Please see User talk:Soulauthor. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for weighing in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choir of Mainstockheim. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I see the the user is blocked now, but thanks for the notice. If someone blanks a page in a way we would interpret as a request for deletion, but we would not allow them to (as in this case), what should I do? Just notify them without the warning? ItsZippy (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes. If the blanking is allowable, that is, if they were the only meaningful contributor, you simply place a "db-author" template on the page, thereby making explicit what we think the author's wish is. In this case, there were some meaningful edits by others (though not many, I grant you), which is why I denied the blanking, so to speak--if you run into something like that, the best thing to do is, you're right, to restore the content and explain on the author/blanker's talk page what's going on. We don't usually consider that vandalism (if it's a close call on the "meaningful content" bit), esp. if you're dealing with an editor who doesn't have that many edits; here, however, the editor persisted to the point of disruption, leaving me with little choice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much for the clarification. ItsZippy (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Your writing at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lawrence_Kennedy was done with grace, yet strongly signaled to the editor that they should assume good faith and make content based arguments instead of just attacking other editors. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Your hard work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moscow Penny Ante is seen and appreciated. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Irenaean theodicy

The article Irenaean theodicy you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Irenaean theodicy for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, ItsZippy

I think you have a message on my user talk. Weirdest, thing...I seem to get messages intended for others often. Not your concern, really...I just couldn't resist the observation. See ya 'round Tiderolls 21:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, how weird. Thanks for the note. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Very NPOV response to the IP, I might add. Hope you don't mind me using it, or variations thereof as needed, in future. Tiderolls 21:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Feel free to use it - it's all for a common goal. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Improvements at Irenaean theodicy

Wow, you've made a lot of great improvements to Irenaean theodicy! It's great to see such efforts in improving an article about a theological topic like this. I'll tell you the strengths and weaknesses I see.

As for its strengths, first off, it's admirably neutral. For obvious reasons, most articles on these sorts of topics suffer from slanted reporting by those either strongly for or against a given interpretation; this article covers the bases in a nice balanced way. Second, it is much more full than it was before! I love the additions on background and related theodicies and history. The citations are also much improved. I think it's very close.

For its weaknesses, I mentioned a little bit about one of the images at Talk:Irenaean theodicy, which should be removed. Under the "Theodicy" section, you might want to separate out "Irenaeus" just as you did the other people, and it may be best to rename the "Theodicy" section something like "Development". Would that be accurate? The article could also use more internal wikilinks to related topics. (I added a few.) For instance, the Leibniz section should probably link to Théodicée, where his views were expounded, and Best of all possible worlds. Also, the lede might be a bit too long; ledes are usually no longer than 4 paragraphs, and in an article this size three might be more appropriate. (Tweaking the lede can be the hardest part!)

If you make a few tweaks like those mentioned above, I think it would be ready to renominate for GA status. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It would also be a good idea to make sure related articles link to this one in the text, to give this article more notice. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback. I'll make the changes you've suggested and renominate, then. Thanks so much - I really appreciate it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your blanking revert

Hi, referring to your revert, I have undone it, and put a db-g7. This wil render the other running AFD moot. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi DVdm. I had not CSDed the page because of this and this, which seemed to be substantial contributions (and so disqualify the article from being deleted per G7). Personally, I would delete the article, but I would want it to go through an AfD procedure. As I said, I'm not sure that G7 applies, in light of those edits. I'll leave the CSD template there for now, but could you let me know what you think, please? I would tend towards holding an AfD where the issue is not completely clear cut. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zippy, yes I understand your concerns. Anyway, it looks like the page has been deleted by now upon specific request by the original author (and their IP-identities) on their user talk page. It was a clear case of someone's private project, as we see on this version of the AFD, just before the author blanked that as well. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. As the page is now deleted, I'm not too concerned - I would have supported deletion anyway. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 06:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for the quick reversions of vandalism on my userpage. It's not often someone beats me to the reverts on my own page :) Keep up the great work. Trusilver 21:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Much appreciated. :) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the quick revert on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem; glad I could help. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page and user talk page, and for reporting the offending party at AIV before I could. Cheers! —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

FYI regarding your edit here [1], you may be interested in: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Endingsesame ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Userpage Shield
		Please accept this token of appreciation for your recent help at my user talk. Keep up the good work. Tiderolls 04:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

White Horse Prophecy GA review

Hi. Thanks for reviewing White Horse Prophecy. I've added a mention in the lead about the theological basis for the prophecy; could you take another look at the article and let me know if this change would satisfy that one portion of your concerns? I'll also look for additional sources to address the other points you raised. Richwales (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also added some more sources (including some non-LDS sources), as well as additional info about defenders of the prophecy's authenticity. It's been frustrating trying to find additional non-LDS references to the prophecy (or the underlying theology), and I might or might not be able to find additional sources, though I do plan to keep trying. Richwales (talk) 06:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Richwales. I think the addition you have made to the lead is good, and would satisfy my concern there. I also think you've done a really good job in finding more reliable sources - I can imagine that they are not easy to come by, so good job. The one problem I still have would be the breadth of details. First, let me just say that I don't know a great deal about the White Horse Prophecy, os it may well be that what I'm after simply does not exist. However, I do think that the reaction to the prophecy from those not affiliated with the LDS (from other American politicians, or Christians from other denominations, for example) would help. I'm not sure, but I expect there would be criticism of the theological basis for the prophecy from other Christian figure; it might help if you could find some of those.

I think that is now my only area of concern (and, as I said, it may not be a large problem). If you can try to find reaction to the prophecy from non-LDS affiliated people, then I think this could then pass another GA nomination. Thanks for all the great work you've done on the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the feedback. It's very helpful for me to get reactions to this material from readers who are more distant from and less familiar with the subject than I am — I happen to be a believing member of the LDS Church, and although I can try hard to mentally step outside my background and consider this topic from a non-LDS perspective, it's obviously not always going to be easy.

I'm continuing to look for more (and more reliable) sources — including more secondary sources to supplement or replace some of the primary sources currently in the article.

The task of finding non-LDS reactions to the White Horse Prophecy is complicated by the fact that there are really two closely intertwined issues floating around here — the general question of whether Joseph Smith and other important LDS figures believed and taught that the US Constitution would "hang by a thread" (it's pretty much indisputable that this is the case) vs. the specific question of whether Joseph Smith said this in 1843 as part of the entire discourse reported in the account of Edwin Rushton and John Roberts (this is far less clear). Most outside commentators have contented themselves with talking about whether various Mormon politicians see themselves as potentially fulfilling a fabled role of saving the Constitution — and, indeed, several of the sources I'm currently citing in the "Interpretation" section are from non-LDS sources.

As for non-LDS theological criticism narrowly directed at the entire White Horse Prophecy in the Rushton/Roberts account, there doesn't seem to be much of that except for material from anti-Mormons (such as Sandra Tanner) whose goal is to set up the prophecy as a straw man — i.e., if Tanner can make a case that the complete White Horse Prophecy did authentically come from Joseph Smith, she can then point to various details in the Rushton/Roberts account which appear not to have occurred as predicted, and this (in her view) would bolster her position that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and that everything he claimed and taught was of the devil.

I'd be grateful for any other thoughts or observations you might have. Richwales (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Richwales. First let me say that I am impressed at your ability to write about this topic with a NPOV - not many people could write about something that they hold faith about in such a good way, so well done with that. I think everything you are continuing to do to the article is very good. As I've said before, the only thing that I think is missing is non-LDS interpretations. It could be, however, that these simply do not exist (or, if they do, reliable sources for them do not). If that turns out to be the case, then I think the article is now up to GA standard. I'd suggest you make one last search for non-LDS reaction and, if there is none, renominate. You've done a really good job on this, I'm impressed. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll do another round of searching for material and let you know what (if anything) I find. Richwales (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added some more material to the "Interpretation" section's opening paragraph (splitting it into two paragraphs now), and also some more to the subsection on Glenn Beck. I've managed to find some stuff in the past couple of days via ProQuest; unfortunately, most of the "sources" that can be had through Google searches fall basically into the category of self-published web sites, blogs, and wikis that are not reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. You can see in this diff what I've done to the article since you and I started discussing it. Richwales (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What you've done looks really good. I appreciate the difficulty in finding reliable sources and expect there are very few - I'm impressed by what you've managed to find. I think that the current version is now much better and probably worth renominating as a GA. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead and relist it. Thanks very, very much for your help. Richwales (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Marvellous. As I've said numerous times - good job with the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)