User talk:ItsZippy/Archive 14

I am suggesting the following addition to the section on John Hick in your excellent article “Augustinian theodicy.” Hick (esp. his Evil and the God of Love ) has been such a major voice in theodicy generally and in opposition to Augustine that it seems that he might warrant more voice in your article. What do you think?

• For Hick, suffering serves God’s purpose of bringing “imperfect and immature” humanity to himself “in uncompelled faith and love.”^[1] Hick acknowledges that this process often fails in our world.^[2] However, in the after-life, Hick asserts that “God will eventually succeed in His purpose of winning all men to Himself in faith and love.”^[3] Vejlefjord (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vejlefjord, thank you very much for your message. The article is not 'mine', though I have worked on it a great deal, and you are free to edit it if you wish; still, I appreciate you wanting to discuss it with me first. I would personally be inclined to leave that out, as I think it would take the article off track a little. The article is about the Augustinian theodicy, so Hick is mentioned wherever he commented on the theodicy (both his classification of some theodicies as 'Augustinian', and his criticism of the same). I think it would be good to keep the bits on Hick strictly to his comments on the Augustinian theodicy (or we could fill a page with just what Hick said). Does that make sense? I don't know if you have seen the article on Irenaean theodicy, which I have also spent a lot of work on (though I have not brought it to the same standard as Augustinian theodicy yet) - there is certainly room to talk about Hick more in there; have a read and see if there's anything you could do to improve it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, will do when I can. Vejlefjord (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ItsZippy, I would like to clarify whether this mediation also covers the Pantheism article, I believe it should, if that is allowed. The edit war exists there too, and for exactly the same reasons. If we don't deal with it now, we will need another mediation for it covering much of the same ground.--Naturalistic (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the mediation covers both articles - I have given a full response at the mediation page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I have proposed a compromise wording on the World Pantheist Movement, on the mediation page. It would be good if you take a look and suggest how to proceed.
Allisgod is being extremely inflexible, he won't budge an inch. He does not even seem to be reading what I write any more but simply responds by saying I write too much, or I am trying to bully him.
My compromise wording for the current question was 37 words long and included all 22 words of the version he said he would accept.
His own "compromise" however also involved my allowing him to edit the Naturalistic Pantheism page and agreeing not to remove any of his additions that were properly sourced, however:

1. This strays into areas we have not discussed yet and
2. It ignores issues such as synthesis, POV, incorrect reading of sources, and biassed POV selection of sources, all of which he has done a lot of.

I took another look at the Pantheism page recently and I do believe there is not much there that I would like to see changed. With any reasonable person it should be possible to come to an agreement, but with Allisgod I am not at all sure. What does one do about edit warriors who will not compromise in a mediation?--Naturalistic (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The article Nishikant dixit was nominated for deletion --->Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nishikant dixit on 28 August, and is still not closed. The consensus has been reached to delete. I request that AfD discussion be closed so that the article can be deleted. Harsh (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It seems the article was never properly listed (I think the user who relisted it the first time didn't quite do it right). Also, someone demonstrated at the end that the person might exist, so the hoax rationale is somewhat moot; I have relisted the article for those reasons. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it and relisting the article. You said that the article was removed from the AfD listing on 28. So if anyone deletes the log entry in AfD, wouldn't it be automatically/manually reverted? Harsh (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what happened. Electric Catfish relisted it on the 28th August (I don't quite know why, as the discussion was posted on the 28th) - all I can assume is that, because he relisted it on the day that it was listed, the tool removed it from the 28th and didn't add it again. It's unusual, and I am not entirely sure why it happened. Anyway, the discussion will have another week and, hopefully, a clear consensus at the end of that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ohk...thanks. By the way, I wanted to know how would someone assess a user to be in good standing or not in good standing (as stated in WP:NAC). I also wanted to know if someone nominates an article about a village which isn't quite notable (and there are perhaps hundreds of villages of same name in that country), but its existence is still verified by a couple of sources, then should it be nominated under that reason? Would it be incorrect as per WP:NPLACE. Harsh (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A user in good standing tends to be someone who has been around a little while (not ages - a few months, say) is not blocked or under any other sanctions, and has not been asked not to close AfDs. As a general rule, I advise non-admins only to close discussions that have a very obvious consensus - as in, a unanimous keep/redirect/merge verdict. With the village, if its existence can be verified, then it will generally be kept - is there a specific AfD you are referring to? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is this article named Nandnama. I nominated it without reading that relevant policy. Harsh (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to withdraw it, let me know and I'll speedy keep the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I want to withdraw it. Thank you so much for all prompt responses. Harsh (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I've done that for you now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

		CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
		Zip, you were the CVUA's first admin, a great instructor, and a visionary who took the Academy to heights heretofor unseen, it is my honor and priviledge to award you the Counter-Vandalism Unit's Gold Award, our highest decoration. Achowat (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.

• Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
• Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
• New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
• Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
I have a pending request for AWB HERE, pending since 20 August. I want you to approve/reject my request based on your discretion. Thanks. Harsh (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I am able to. If it was a simple request which hadn't been controversial, I probably would look at it, but as a few people have presented some concerns, I think I am probably too involved, especially as a direct response to a message on my talk page. I suggest you wait a little while and find something else to do, and request access in two or three weeks. In the meantime, if there is something urgent that needs doing, you might find someone with access who can help you - you can make a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks anyways. Harsh (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you delete this AfC submission that I tagged yesterday? As you can see from the page's history, I attempted to clean the article by removing promotional content and excessive URL links but it continues to be promotional and provides very little material appropriate for an encyclopedia. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I had a look and it does seem very promotional; I have deleted the page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello ItsZippy. I believe we communicated sometime in the last month, I was wondering whether the article I link you to in the header may have any position for a possible AfD or another type of deletion. Since I am new and I don't want to get a bad view of myself early I thought I would ask someone who is more experienced.

My reasoning behind my thought of possible deletion is the consideration that the article is about a game/software which is not really notable. 3 sources are provided. 35 references inline. 2 sources I say are notable but only a bit and they are Linuxgamenews and Iloveubuntu. They provide 18 of the inline sources. Then 17 inline sources are used by the main website. The website is only link where content can be questioned, half of the information used on all sources are not verified in the source provided which is increasing my questioning concern on whether it is notable or not. I personally would consider a propose deletion rather than any other or to leave it but if so the article will need the sources to be much more reliable and verify able. The reason I contacted you is to avoid taking action which was in appropriate. If you could contact me, that would be great. Thanks ItsZippy, John F. Lewis (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that would be a candidate for deletion. As far as I can see, all the sources provided are either unreliable or not independent. There might be one reliable source, , but even that is dubious and, alone, not enough to establish notability. Feel free to nominate it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion via AfD or via Speedy? John F. Lewis (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD. A page like this would only be eligible for speedy deletion if it made no credible claim of significance at all. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, Proposing the deletion now. Thanks! John F. Lewis (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That was a PROD, rather than an AfD. Is that what you intended? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I must have made a mistake then. Ill fix it now. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's great, well done. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Solved. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Zippy, Greetings, I understand that you were the admin for the Rahhal article that was soft deleted. If that would be the case, then may I request access to a copy so that I and my students might edit it for improvement. If that's not possible or my facts are wrong, could you as an admin explain my options. Thank you, user:crtew(no access to tildes now)

No problem, you can find it at User:Crtew/Assaf Abu Rahhal. Please try to address the issues raised in the AfD before moving it back into the mainspace (I can review it for you before hand, if you like). If you have any questions, please just ask. Also, if you have no access to tildes, the sign button at the top will insert them for you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Crtew (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Zippy, An edited draft at the above location is ready for review. The two issues in the AfD as I saw it were a lack of any kind of notability statement and an indication of Abu Rahhal's relative importance. I used the notability statement to tackle both of these issues. In addition, I indirectly showed that Abu Rahhal received SIGCOV through numerous references. His career and life were fleshed out in the articles. As for republication, I would suggest the title be changed to "Death of Assaf Abu Rahhal" but I would defer to your opinion. The biggest problem with writing the narrative was dealing with the two hardened positions that contradict each other. My aim was to be fair and balanced, and I don't think either side would be happy by this account but I also don't think anybody would claim that this was a one-sided narrative. It was unfortunate that the original obituary was no longer available online, and I wonder if that was where the precise birth date already in the article came from. It is Wikipedia policy to delete sources no longer online or can this cite be restored? At least the article was cleaned up in the process! Also beneficial was that it opened up an article surrounding the death of Layal Najib. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That looks better, and you have dealt with some of the concerns; however, I'm not entirely convinced that it's ready. For reference, I am looking at WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP1E. You have found a wide range of sources, which is good, but they were all published all around the same time - all of them except one were published on the 3th, 4th or 5th of August 2010, the other was on the 15th. To really demonstrate notability, you would need to show that this had a lasting effect, which mean sources published after the event - can you find anything that was published later on, perhaps from 2011 onwards? If not, the article might just get through an AfD because of the geographical scope of the even, but it would be close (I wouldn't support keeping it yet, but I tend to fall towards the deletionist end of the scale). A source or two published a few months after the event would cement it, so that's where your work would be best spent. Also, sources that are not online are acceptable (and can often be more reliable), you just need to give enough information for someone to be able to find the source themselves if they wanted to. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Zippy, I added a source from 2012 that honored the second anniversary of the death of Abu Rahhal in the town where he was killed. Do you agree with moving it to "Death of ... " Thanks again, Crtew (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Added the 2nd 2012 source! Crtew (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

How does it get moved back into main article space? Crtew (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Should I move it? Or will you move it? How does the article get married up with its former talk page and with a link to the deletion discussion? Thanks, Crtew (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That does look much better, well done. Notability might still be a little tenuous - this only mentions him once so is not really enough, but this is about him and published sufficiently after the event. If it were at AfD now I'd vote keep, but weak keep. If you want to move it into the mainspace, you may do that yourself now. If you intend to keep improving the article, I would look for some further sources (perhaps from another publication - Al Akhbar is good, but multiple sources would be useful). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy. I haven't looked at the FAC you suggested on my talk page, but saw that you are trying to get Argument from morality to GA. I've left a comment on Talk:Argument from morality. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's great - I'd been waiting for some feedback on that. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 19:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

see i think i have completed my task ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 19:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's great, I'll have a look at that later. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 13:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please give a look ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 13:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, ItsZippy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

John F. Lewis (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that your recent decision at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover has received some feedback, and you might want to head over there and take a look. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 07:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see! ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 07:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.

Done!

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 18:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Done! ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 18:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy. I wanted to ask about the presence of an uninvolved party in this mediation, Peter Morell. He seems intelligent, I have no objection to his comments, but when he makes specific requests I think that disturbs your methodical mediation process - eg he is asking us each to define Naturalistic Pantheism - and that should come in the next section.
What's the procedure on that point? What's to stop any number of editors coming in, if one is allowed? Then it becomes more like a DRN than a mediation.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I will speak to him. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again ItsZippy. Re Naturalistic Pantheism - are you waiting for me to launch the section of the mediation about the definition of naturalistic pantheism? It would probably be helpful if you made a short intro asking us each to state their definition/intro and whether we see any way of arriving at an agreed version.
We are dealing here with the very first paragraph of the article.
This section is crucial because Allisgod's claims for the definition are central to

1. his opposition to mentioning Naturalistic Pantheism in the Pantheism article, and to
2. his opposition to the World Pantheist Movement being included in the Naturalistic Pantheism article.
   

We have to deal with it in order to resolve both those issues.
I already know what his viewpoint will be and I suspect that he will stick to it regardless of how much evidence I bring forward, in which case we can then discuss and agree what wider forums could be used.
I hope you understand that my purpose in the Google Books and Google Scholar search counts is not to use them to find specific sources, but to empirically test claims that this or that author or concept are critical to the definition. In the absence of such research, we are left only with rival claims about what "most scholars" say.--Naturalistic (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

hello sir ,i have been contributing on some article and they are almost complete but dont know the procedure for reviewing them for a good article nomination then what to do.Thanx ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 09:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zeeyanketu. To get a good article review, you can follow the steps at WP:GAN, under the how to nominate an article section. If you tell me the article you've been working on, I can have a look before hand and let you know if I think it's ready. Also, you don't need to always use the talkback template when you talk to me - they're unnecessary if you are posting on my talkpage, and I am watching your talk page and CVUA page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OK,actually the article is (Rowdy Rathore)---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 19:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. I've not read it in depth, but the first thing that springs to mind is that the lead is too short. The lead should summarise the rest of the article, and there should be nothing in the lead that is not in the article, and not major points in the article that are not in the lead. At the moment, the lead seems far too small for the size of the article. I suggest: a paragraph on the plot, cast and characters; a paragraph on the production; and a paragraph on the release and box office. The rest seems ok, but I've not given it a thorough going over (if I have time tomorrow, I'll see if I can give a fuller review, though I might not have time). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok then i will work to expand the lead .---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 16:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

you seems to be busy these days.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 12:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy. Just to inform you that the 'Philosophy in Malta' page has been improved considerably. You had initially given it a Low status. Would you consider revising that? Thanks. --Katafore (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Katafore, thanks for your message. I'm not the one who initially rated that page (I've never read it myself); Gregbard was the first to give it that rating. If I have time later I might review it, but I can't promise anything. However, I don't imagine that it will ever be more than low importance - that is not because you've done a bad job, but because knowing about philosophy in Malta is not that important even for an extensive understanding of the subject; I image it would be low importance even if it was written perfectly. Still, the quality rating (that's the one which rates how well the article is written) may certainly improve. If I have time, I'll review it; as I said, I'm pretty busy at the moment so might not get round to it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Much obliged. :) --Katafore (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the total edits,How to find the top edited pages by a user and how to create graphs on edit count page.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 16:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you go to your edit count page, you will see instructions for creating month count & top edited pages graphs. To do this, create User:Zeeyanketu/EditCounterOptIn.js and put any content in it, it should then update (you might have to wait a while). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanx,I got it.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 06:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Can i show you example which i have done earlier as they are still protected.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 15:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You've done it - the extra information is now available. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I havent found any page for speedy deletion still .Can i do it myself with another ip account.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 14:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried using the new pages feed? If you are really struggling to find something, let me know and we can move on to the next task. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah,I want to move on because it might take some time but if i will find latter then i would like to let you know.Anyway i know facts about CSD So,please move further.Thanx!---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 19:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no problem - we can move on to the next task (you seem to know what you're doing there). The next task might not be there until late tomorrow, though. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please remove Anderson from the list of graduates (indefinitely blocked sock) - there's no point in any curious person clicking on his name. There won't be any clerking at CVUA in the future, so do continue to watch the pages and update any entries that concern your work there.. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry. I tend not to keep things like that up to date, but I've done it now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! I know you've worked very hard on this for a long time. My hat's off to you. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much. I think that was one of the first articles I started working on when I arrived here, so I am very pleased. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I really wish to be reviewed for adminship as I feel I'm ready for more responsibility. I'm not going to lie, in the past few weeks or so I've had a few run ins with some admins and kind of acted like a baby, but I've put all of that behind me and I really want to do all I can to help out more here on WikiPedia. If you could review me and [if you feel I'm ready] nominate me for adminship, it'd be greatly appreciated, thank you so much, Djjazzyb (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, you probably need a bit more experience before running for adminship. I'm not one to put too much emphasis on edit count (I passed with fewer edits that was average), but you've only got about 800, which for many people at RfA is far too few. Additionally, there are certain areas where you need more experience to get the hang of how things work - I notice you've had some issues with copyright, and someone had to talk to you about removing AfD notices. While it seems you have the right kind of attitude, I think you need to spend some more time as a regular editor getting more experience; come back in about 6 months and I'd love to have another look at where you're at. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well thanks anyway, I'll come back when I've more experience. Djjazzyb (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey ItsZippy. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved with Counter-Vandalism, and may still be. The Academy project has been restructured, placing responsibility for it on the trainers themselves and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is still interested in remaining as active trainers.

In future, there will be no clerking or coordination, so If you are still active and can respond to requests from students within around 48 hours, you need do nothing until a new student contacts you on your talk page. Nevertheless, if your status changes, please update your entry on the table of active trainers at the new WP:CVUA page. If you no longer have sufficient time to commit to the CV training project, that's fine, but please remove your name from the active list. While on your travels however, should you come across users who are having a hard time with their reverts, don't hesitate to send them a link to the CVUA. Thanks, and happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi zippy,how are you doing?Seems busy! ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 19:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm good thanks! Yes, I am very busy (can you tell!?!) - I'm off to university on Sunday, so there's lots to do. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I might be busy in coming days so its better to watch past five days.My real name is "Rahul Chauhan".May i know your name if you dont mind.Thanx---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 16:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. I leave for university tomorrow, so it might take a little while to get your final exam posted (and, if I get it done this evening, it'll take time for me to mark it) - thank you for your patience. And you can call me Jack (I'm surprised I forgot to introduce myself personally earlier - sorry about that). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok! thanx Jack Smith. and i wish you all the best for you studies and administratorship.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 18:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You can tell me to do whatever you think is appropriate.Anyways, all the best for your university begining,By the way which course you choose at university.Thanx---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 17:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I recently nominated a page for deletion and it has been deleted now.See here *.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 07:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I was thrilled with your clear and objective argument you've provided in the past. I thought you would be able to provide valuable insight on this Afd discussion SEOmoz.org Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, in April you removed the move-sysop protection from the page Soviet Union. Considering that it has been moved in the past before (both in good and bad faith), could you restore it? Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The page has not been moved at all since the move protection expired back in April. There doesn't seem to be a dispute any more, so I don't think move protection is necessary at this time; if that changes, then I'm happy to restore (or for another admin to restore) that protection. For now, I think it's fine. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!How are you doing?---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 19:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really 'back'; I was just looking at something and saw the yellow banner. I'm doing good though, thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok that's fine!May i know when you will be back on track.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 18:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ribbon Salminen (talk) is using inappropriate language (bringing my parents into it) on using resources on the Kaitlyn page. Since I was blocked months ago for reverting the page, I thought I should tell you that he/she is deleting resources because it does not have TWO sources to back it up. I never heard that before, and he/she is picking and choosing resources that should stay and shouldn't when they are from the same sites calling some unreliable when they are reliable. I went back over five times changing resources to "reliable" ones but he/she keeps deleting them still claiming it to be unreliable. He/She also stated that Ringside Xcess is an unreliable site even after I got the opinions from other users stating that the site is indeed reliable. Instead of reverting and having a conversation with them, I came to you for help. 75.176.3.213 (talk) 5:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the user yet? Try starting a discussion on the article's talk page to see if the two of you can come to an agreement. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been trying to explain to the user for hours now, but he/she keep using profanity, name calling, and does not care for anyone else's opinion. He/she is being really immature about the entire situation and is making it a bigger problem that it has to be. You can read mine and his comments on our talk pages. 75.176.3.213 (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth using the dispute resolution noticeboard; they have impartial volunteers there who can help guide a discussion and achieve consensus. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm going to apply for administrator status when I remove part vandalism, reporting and requesting deletion of some pages. It would be great to have the features that come with it. So to see if I (perhaps) could be administered, so I just wanted to contact you. Greetings Simeondahl (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Simeondahl, thanks for your message. It's good to hear that you'd be willing to try for adminship; unfortunately, I don't really have enough time to properly review your contributions and give you any feedback (with something like this, I wouldn't want to rush, because that would be no help to you at all). There are plenty of people who I'm sure will give you feedback about your suitability - Worm That Turned and Kudpung are two users whose opinions I hold in high regard. They will be able to give you useful feedback and let you know whether adminship is something you'd be ready for or not. Best of luck with whatever you end up doing. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)

First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :).

Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :). Just a quick note to say we'll be holding office hours in #wikimedia-office at 21:30 UTC this Thursday (the 29th) to show everyone the additional tools we're thinking of working on. All attendence and feedback is appreciated :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi jack,how are you,I hope everything is going up to the mark regarding you.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 19:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Prosperity theology know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 4, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 4, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Prosperity theology is a Christian religious doctrine that financial blessing is the will of God, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to Christian ministries will increase one's material wealth. Based on non-traditional interpretations of the Bible, often with emphasis on the Book of Malachi, the doctrine views the Bible as a contract between God and humans: if humans have faith in God, he will deliver his promises of security and prosperity. The doctrine emphasizes the importance of personal empowerment, proposing that it is God's will for his people to be happy. It came to prominence in the United States during the Healing Revivals of the 1950s and later figured prominently in the Word of Faith movement and 1980s televangelism. In the 1990s and 2000s, it was adopted by influential leaders in the Charismatic Movement and promoted by Christian missionaries throughout the world. Churches in which the prosperity gospel is taught are often non-denominational and usually directed by a sole pastor or leader, although some have developed multi-church networks. Prosperity theology has been criticized by leaders in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, as well as other Christian denominations, who maintain that it is irresponsible and theologically unsound. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on your first TFA... main page appearances can be quite vexing though, it brings out all the trolls. Oh well, hope you're having a happy holiday season! Mark Arsten (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

Interesting article. Kudos to you for getting it to FA status. Killiondude (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

	Here's a toast to the host Of those who edit wiki near and far, To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par". We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose, And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows. A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians! - From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}

~TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

~TheGeneralUser (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you ItsZippy! Enjoy the Whisky ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey all; another newsletter.

• If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
• Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
• We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
• Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.

That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

• • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
• If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

• We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Wikipedia.

• We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. Add it here. You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.

• Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!

• And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:

	Teahouse Host Badge
	Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time. Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 01:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, welcome back. And secondly, thanks for the note you left on WP:RPP. Anyway, Bollyjeff contacted both IP and Bongaliaa on their talk pages but there were no responses from them, they just went on adding the same materials over and over again. I also requested for protection earlier and was suggested to report the user to admin by HJ Mitchell when they edit again. So, I reported Bongaliaa to WP:AIV but was sent to WP:BLP/N where I left a note about the issue. Do you have any suggestions regarding the issue? Torreslfchero (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I'm only nominally back, but thanks for the welcome. The very first step I'd suggest is making a note on the talk page of the actual article - that is a central place and should catch anyone interested in improving it. A note on the talk pages of the involved editors linking them to the discussion would help too - it'll let them feel involved in editing, rather than feel that they're just being reverted. That also allows us to assume good faith - they may genuinely want to improve the article. If you do that and they are either unresponsive or continue to be disruptive, we can look at further action; ideally, we won't get to that point. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.

Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.

1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:

Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper

Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.

Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)

-- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 20:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!

	Teahouse First Birthday Badge
	Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)