User talk:ItsZippy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Re: Talk page problem

I apologize! I usually try to make sure I end it. Again, I'm sorry, I just get so forgetful at times. Sorry for the problems it stirred. Pinkstrawberry02™ ^talk 01:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Further help

Well, actually yes. I hesitated between DRN and RSN, but went to the latter, at it is chiefly a matter of reliable source. Maybe you could state your opinion there? Cheers, Racconish ^Tk 19:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem - I'll take a look in a moment. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated.Racconish ^Tk 07:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, there are other options: you could comment at the article's talk page, or let the discussion at WP:RSN go stale, in which case I would take it to WP:DSN, or consider it is better not to comment again. Let me know please. Thanks, Racconish ^Tk 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would leave the RSN to see if someone else gives an opinion (as I've become involved in this dispute, I don't think I am the best person to provide an outside opinion on the reliability of the source). It seems that Southpole1 has not edited the page recently and, indeed, has not edited Wikipedia in 5 days. If he does not return to the dispute, then I believe we should just leave the issue as it is. If he comes back, we can deal with it as it happens - continuing to talk to him and getting further outside opinions. Thanks for dealing with this so well, it's much appreciated. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have refrained from reverting his last edits but I think it is not appropriate to remove a reliable source for such thin reasons. My only option is therefore to ask for third opinions. If the thread at RSN goes stale without an answer, I'll go to DSN. Thanks anyway. Really. Racconish ^Tk 16:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you taken this to the WP:DRN yet? That might be a better place to go before taking it higher up. It's your call, though. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I had hesitated between DRN and RSN. Thought RSN was more specific. Puzzled there was no answer. Will give it another few days and post at DRN. You are right: it's the best next step. Thanks, Racconish ^Tk 16:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution....

Hi ItsZippy! I replied to you @ Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Spirulina_.28dietary_supplement.29_discussion. Cheers :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavout (talk • contribs) 09:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Dexter

Under no circumstances, should we ever remove other people's comments from threads, unless it's clear vandalism. Please never do this again. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

After submitting the above request, I noticed that you completely altered one of Odoital25's replies, but left it signed with their signature. Please explain this. By the way, Odoital25 keeps leaving unsigned comments, while you advocate them to ignore this issue. I've been trying very hard not to bring this issue on noticeboards, but this is getting way out of hand. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, Hearfourmewesique. I removed some of the comments on that talk page because I felt that they were becoming personal attacks and detrimental to the discussion. I did not make this decision lightly - I carefully reread WP:TPO before I did this and took a long time making the decision and eventually felt that removing them both fell within the guidelines laid out and would be beneficial to the discussion. However, I only wanted to remove the content if it would be uncontroversial and thus, if you disagree with the removal, you have every right to replace the content. I'm sorry my actions distressed you - my intention was simply for the good of the discussion.

I don't think I completely altered one of Odoital25's replies - all I did was remove the beginning of a paragraph (in the same manner that I removed some of what you posted). Again, if anyone is unhappy with that, then they can replace it. As for the signing issue, I would kindly request that you desist in mentioning it on the Dexter talk page. I agree that Odoital should try to sign his posts; however, we must remember to assume good faith and not make any personal attacks. You seem to have forgotten this in some of your more recent posts, which is why us to drop the issue. If you feel you need to take up the issue elsewhere, by all means go to somewhere like WP:WQA. We are having a content discussion on that talk page which is repeatedly being derailed by the signing issue. Let's keep the discussion to the content - we all want to improve the article - and leave the signing issue off that page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You've ninja-reverted vandalism out from under my nose several times today. Blasted superior technology... :) -- LWG talk 21:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Help for Gold Dome

Content copied from User talk:Tide rolls due to technical problem.

Hi, I actually manage PR for the Gold Dome and as such, it seems I'm not actually meant to be updating the information about this historical building? My apologies for any problems that has caused. If I'm not allowed to remove material that has no business being on wiki as it does not contribute factual information in a fair and unbiased manner, please advise what steps I should instead pursue to have the page cleared of this material. Thank you for whatever advise, assistance you can offer Wordizm (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Lori Zwermann, Wordizm

Hi there, Wordzim. I understand your difficulty; however, that fact that you work for Gold Dome does mean that your edits will be scrutinised much more than others. If you believe that there is information in the article which does not belong there, I suggest you open a dialogue on the talk page of the article to try and build consensus among editors. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User Drirenelam

I should also note, that the user who made these edits currently: Drirenelam is NOT Dr. Irene Lam who is the owner of the Gold Dome. I work for Dr. Lam and manage her PR and she does not have a Wiki account. So, I guess this is also possibly a case of impersonation? This is quite likely an account set up by her previous tenant, though I can't go into details about the issue Dr. Lam had with them, because there is a pending court case that includes something similar to what is going on here with the Wiki. As you can guess, opening dialog isn't to work for us. Any other ideas? I don't want to create an "issue" of it, but I'm sure you can see that I'll have to find a way to get this resolved. (sucks that I've been working with Wiki all this time and this person comes along and makes it a problem)Wordizm (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Lori Zwermann

I think we need to assume good faith, unless this editor starts making disruptive edits. If the editor causes no problems, then we're fine. If it is the username itself that you have a problem with, I suggest you take it to WP:UAA, though I don't know how successful a report there would be. Anyway, it seems that your dispute is with more than one user, so a discussion on the talk page is still the best course of action you can take right now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Otium

By the citation tag you put on the article, are you saying I am not following the MOS inline citation methods correctly? How should the inline citations be then?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The inline citations used are good; my problem is that there is a really long list of references at the bottom which could be made into inline citations. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The list of "References" are the full source citation for the inline references that give just the author's last name and the page number of the book page for the inline reference. This is the way they are related.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see - that makes a lot of sense, actually. That's fine then; sorry for my misunderstanding. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Irenaean theodicy

Passed Irenaean theodicy as a good article. A bot should add the green spot and update the article history soon. Congratulations. I put it under Religious doctrines, teachings, texts and symbols on this page. You may want to move it to a better category.AIRcorn (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing this. I've moved it to the Philosophical topics category. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 08:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help with those Sam Pepper fans, I tried to be as clear as possible but they just weren't listening. Hopefully the AfD can proceed a little smoother and the status of the article can be decided. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem - thank you too. I think the best we can do is encourage constructive contributions to the AfD, supporting those willing to work with us. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again, but check out the top two tweets in Mr. Peppers' Twitter feed. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia editors "have no lifes[sic]" RA0808 ^talk_contribs 22:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, how immature. I suggest we just ignore it - there's not much we can do - and deal with any disruptive editors (through warning and then the relevant admin noticeboards) as and when we have to. I'll keep watching the page - we'll see how things develop. Hopefully, nothing will happen, apart from someone moaning about Wikipedia on Twitter. Thanks for letting me know and helping to deal with this. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks ItsZippy for helping to promote Irenaean theodicy to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 23:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution requested

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Sune Sik, Duchies in Sweden". Thank you.

Miss your balanced input here and on related talk pages. Hope you will have time to help. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Your presence is needed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers discussion

The debate is going in circles again. It is a long time since you moderated the discussion, and your presence is needed to bring an end to the debate. This has been going on for too long now. Useerup (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I'll have a look & comment. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the recent discussion, I feel that DRN is not working for this issue. I have recommended that a Mediation Cabal is opened. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there no other avenue? I fear that some editors want to protract this as much as possible to wear out the opposition. Even if there is several policies stating that if original research is found it must be removed, and the the burden of evidence is on the editor adding it back, any attempts at changing status quo is immediately met with reverts. The core issue is really a policy issue. What is needed is not mediation - we are far too entrenched at this point. Useerup (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation will not lead to anything. It needs a fairly basic decision. There is no breakdown of communication. The parties are civil to each other. It is just a case that the two sides cannot agree and a decision is necessary. If there is no decision it will just continue to be a festering sore of discontent and dispute. The advice to go to mediation is not appropriate. Dmcq (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggested mediation as I felt that it would help the editors involved find common ground. The WP:ORN is another possibility - someone there can make a decision on whether using median is OR, which might finally resolve the issue. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Teleological argument

I'm just getting back to this and I wanted to drop you a note to say I thought your edits were great for clarity and you brought up some good points. I'd welcome more help with any of the obscure bits I've brought back.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was just about to post on your talk page! Thanks for your support & encouragement, I really appreciate this. I would really love to improve this article as much as possible, potentially to Good Article status - I was wondering if you'd be willing to work on this with me? I think, for the most part, the content & sources are fine - for me, clarity & style seem to be the main problems. I'll continue to work on the article, copyediting & expanding where appropriate; anything you can also contribute would be great. I'm going to archive the current talk page (which hasn't seen a post in over a year) - I'd suggest we use that to continue improving the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if it weren't for the ID controversy (which I avoid as much as possible), teleology is a difficult topic. It's much more subtle than one would think given the taboo in modern science. I imagine there might be more to Thomas' argument than what's in the article now… not that it seems to have much to do with Aristotle's teleology. I'll keep an eye out for sources.

Let me know if anything's too opaque. Like adding "parts" back in v. the animal as a whole. Aristotle does treat essence in a similar way for species, but there's much more hand waving—circle of life and all that—so the claims are weaker. However, an infinite amount of time having determined the final outcome of the survival of the fittest is key to his naturalistic teleology. One quirk is that the adult form is copied verbatim from the father (in species with two sexes) so all humans have exactly the same "soul", like perfected genetic info (a ratio of the four elements). People sometimes think teleology has something to do with the future influencing past events (teleological attractor) but he always makes sure the form is available to be copied and a hypothetical chain of efficient cause takes it from there. TMI for an article talk page, no doubt… or an edit summary :) —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall copy this conversation to the article talk page and reply there. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi ItsZippy, I made my opening statement on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 November 2011/Iraqi Turkmens on 10th November; I was just wondering, as user: MamRostam03 reverted my edit again on 8th November (and is therefore likely to still be active and observing the article) what will happen if we do not hear from this user within the Mediation Cabal?.Turco85 (Talk) 15:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Turco, thanks for your message. I will send a message to MamRostam03, reminding him that there is a case open and asking for his input - hopefully, once we remind him, he will co-operate. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you!Turco85 (Talk) 14:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

My Life II... The Journey Continues (Act 1) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Diddy, Bow Wow, 25/8

Teleological argument (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Malevolence

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear ItsZippy/Archive 4: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 November 2011/Iraqi Turkmens

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, ItsZippy, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I have been so busy. Statement made now. MamRostam03 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and willingness to participate. If you haven't already, please watchlist the page in order that you may keep updated with the case's progression. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corruption Gov

As the article needs more work before it is ready, I ask that you consider my suggestion that it be Userfied back to its author for continued work OUT OF MAINSPACE, as the topic IS verifiable and might well be seen as passing WP:NF when completed. I will be glad to oversee its growth and improvement away from the ticking clock and I have strongly urged on the author's talk page that he use userspace for creation of his drafts for new articles in the future, and not mainspace. I think its reasoable to give him guidence and time to learn. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Iraqi Turkmens mediation

Hi ItsZippy, I just wanted to message you here to explain a few of my feelings towards the current situation (as I don't want to go off topic on the Mediation Cabal). In my last comment I listed a number of footnotes regarding the current version of the article and had indicated, with page numbers, that those sources support my argument; MamRostam03's last comments says the following: "do not take Turco's word for anything. He gives a list of "footnotes" to try and bolster his phoney contentions that Anatolian Turkish is their language.". How am I meant to respond to such a statement when these sources really do say it. It does not make any sense, and this is the main reason why I stopped editing the article a few months back. I'm currently writing up a fresh version of the article here: User:Turco85/Iraqi Turkmens, would appreciate it if you had a look to see that I am not just "making things up". Hopefully I have not come across as to "moany" and sorry if this is boring you. Turco85 (Talk) 12:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Turco. I share your concern at the way the current case is going and will try to encourage proper and civil discussion there. Could I request that you keep all discussion of this issue on the case page, so that we might ensure transparency in the case. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll wait for MamRostam03 to sign the ground rules. On the bright side, it's giving me loads of time to do more research. Have a good day Zippy.Turco85 (Talk) 13:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Adventure (1974 film)

It appears sources are available that could be HAVE been used to improve the article.[1][2] I feel allowing the AFD to remain open rewards pointy behavior and allows the AFD to be used as a platform to canvas for input at the ANI. Both bad faith acts, and we do not condone or reward such. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Since sources were provided, I'm more than happy to support the keeping of that article. As for the other issues, I was unaware of anything else going on beyond or behind this AfD, thus I only commented based on the nomination in question. If the nomination was pointy, then I have no problem with a speedy keep (which happened). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Custom vandalism template

I caught your custom level 1 template on User talk:208.39.161.66 and personally think it's a pretty neat and more personal response than the default {{uw-vandalism1}} template. I was wondering if I could steal it from you to use as well.

Also, I figure it's worth noting that the "Please click here to start a new Section" bit at the top of your talk page actually links to User_talk:Tide_rolls instead of your own talk page, which I assume isn't the intended behavior.

Thanks in advance! Recon Etc (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Recon Etc. I'm glad you appreciate my anti-vandalism and, though I'd like to take credit for that template, it's not mine at all. The warning was automatically used while I was Huggling and I cannot remember the specific event. If you can work out which vandalism template that it, feel free to use it; because it is substituted I don't actually know.

And thank you very, very much for noticing that error at the top of my talk page. Tide Rolls has been getting messages intended for me for quite a while and I had no idea why. I shamelessly stole the temaplate from his page and must have forgotten to change the link. Thanks again. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the interest of posterity, I found the template. It appears to be Template:uw-vandal-rand1, or more specifically Template:uw-vandal-rand1/nodirectives. As for why Huggle appears to be using that, I have no idea. I'm a Twinkle user, anyway, so I'll see if I can force it to use that one. And you're welcome about finding the error. Sincerely, Recon Etc (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well done. I quite like that template to - much more personal than others. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)