Wikipedia

User talk:ItsZippy/Archive 19

< User talk:ItsZippy
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Ocaasi in topic The Wikipedia Library Survey

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Version

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

You reverted to a version with a broken link in the image caption. Pass a Method talk 17:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. Could you identify the link that needs fixing for me, as I can't seem to find it myself (or put an edit request on the talk page). Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you protect Abraham, Moses and Daniel too please? Pass a Method talk 21:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Those three articles do not seem to be experiencing edit warring as bad as Abrahamic religions was before I protected it, so I think it's probably best to keep the unprotected for now. If edit wars continue on those pages then protection may become necessary; for now, I think it's best not to protect. I will watchlist the four articles and keep my eye on them over the next few days. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Wiki hamze has notified Islam, Christianity and Judaism's talk pages but failed to notify the Baha'i talk page of the ongoing discussion at Talk:Abrahamic religions. Is that a violation of WP:CANVAS? Pass a Method talk 13:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Possibly, though if it is, it's only a minor case I think. The message was neutral ('come and join in' rather than 'come and defend your religion', etc) and it didn't look like an attempt to rally support. Nevertheless, missing out Talk:Bahá'í Faith may skew consensus that happens. I'd be inclined to assume that the messages were sent in good faith; perhaps post a message on Talk:Bahá'í Faith, in line with the others - I don't think any further action is needed. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict at WP:ANI

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Your recent edit deleted Enkyo's edit of a minute earlier in which s/he responded to several admins and other editors. Can you find a way to restore that? NebY (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Woah, sorry about that. Another editor has fixed it now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh good, I shouldn't have worried. NebY (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Deepa Miriam

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Antopandeth (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC) My article is continuously reverted.

This article was originally created by me. The fact that Deepa is married to me and she is still my wife. It was mentioned in the first time itself and it was never changed by any one. Recently one person (FreeRangeFrog) started to change the fact. Even after I gave several links to make him understand that the fact is she is married, it is reverted continuously. This action is with some bad personal interest I feel. Please advise him or block him from doing wrong editing. Otherwise please remove the article. please check the links for citation. AntoPandethDeepa Miriam In Asianet TV. Anto Pandeth and Deepa

Thanks

Anto Pandeth. Antopandeth (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anto Pandeth. I understand your position; however, we need reliable sources if we are to put information about Deepa Miriam's marital status in the article. With living people, we do need to be incredibly careful as to what we write about them because what we write on Wikipedia can have a real-life effect on people. Thus, even if what you say is true, we will err on the side of caution and only include Miriam's marital status if we have really strong sources. I couldn't see how the first link you gave me related to Deepa Miriam's marital status, and the second was dead. The third may be of some use, though I don't speak the language. If you can find other sources, that would really help; until then, it is likely that people will keep removing the information you add. I know that this can be frustrating; however, you must understand that we need to be incredibly careful with biographies about living people. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not that you would know me.

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Only to ask if you might be planning a wikipage on Origen's Theodicy following the new book by Mark Scott titled "Origen on the Problem of Evil," Oxford Univ. Press, 2012. LittleIPEditor (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick note ItsZippy. At present the essay on Mark Scott would be limited to a book review other than his relevance to Hick's Irenaen theodicy. My interest was more from the standpoint of your possibly having an interest in an article on "Comparative Theodicy" in its many forms. Your userpage suggests you are in university years now, and this is a popular thesis subject at this time. LittleIPEditor (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Help me please

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Zippy,

I was not frustrated in any manner because the fact is fact,but I was disappointed. The block on me from adding content was removed and I have reverted Deepa’s marital status in the Article. The fact is that from the beginning, when I created the article, the marital status was there for three years. Now one person started to edit the article even after giving him enough links to prove marital status. If that person can’t understand the language, he can ask for a marriage certificate which is in English language. Even if you want it I can provide through a personal email. My mail Id is anto.pandeth@gmail.com,. Please feel free to send your email to me if you want to see the marriage certificate. I hope this will help me.

Thank you.

Antopandeth.

Antopandeth (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If you have a published reference from a reliable source which details Miriam's marital status, you can just add it to the article yourself. If a piece of information about a subject of an article is not the public domain, Wikipedia will generally make an assumption in favour of privacy. If you have further questions, I suggest e-mailing our volunteer response team at info-en-q@wikimedia.org who will be better equipped to answer your questions. In the mean time, please desist from adding any information to the article that you cannot support with a reference, otherwise you may be blocked again. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Orthomolecular medicine

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think there is some issue on here. --    L o g  X   19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - fixed. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Improvements to user page.

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi ItsZippy,

I have made improvements to my MistServer page, updated the information and included a link to a whitepaper written by an industry specialist (I believe in association with StreamingMedia but not a 100 percent sure in that regard.) Could you please take a look at: User:HacateKentu/Mistserver and tell me if it's ok to be placed on the main wikipedia? Furthermore, is it possible to include a link to a presentation held at this past International Broadcasting Convention? It said the youtube shortlink was prohibited on this website.

Kind regards,

HacateKentu (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello again! I've further updated the page text to be more neutral and include the latest information. There's also a new reference. Please let me know if I can do anything else to make the page more suitable at this point or if anything seems off still. Here's a link to the page, for easy navigation. HacateKentu (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor On Occupational Health Psychology Article

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Hi ItsZippy. We are having problems with a disruptive editor with the occupational health psychology article. Mrm7171 is preventing progress on the article by undoing other editor's additions/changes, and by engaging in endless aggressive and argumentative debate on the talk page, generating walls and mountains of text on the same issues over and over, even when several other editors disagree. I have been trying to work on the article for four months, and in that time I have managed to add maybe 4 sentences after many many hours, almost all on the talk page. Each time I add something, Mrm undoes it, and then starts a long argument based only on his/her opinion. He/she claims to have sources that are not provided, and when finally pushed by other editors, will claim support from a source that does not support, either by not saying what Mrm claims the source said, or by mischaracterizing the source. The first sentence of the article was my work, but Mrm undid it 5 times (the last he/she took undid the undo). In the past two days he/she undid my two small changes twice. The behavior is intimidating other editors--I am very reluctant to put any time into the article, only to have my efforts wasted when my additions are undone. I should not have to spend hours and hours defending my change when 4 other editors currently active feel my change is ok. Mrm takes the position that we must have 100% consensus on every word, so he/she must agree with every change. He/she is also the self-appointed guardian of the article, which gives him/her the right to undo anyone's changes if he/she feels there is any discussion of the article, even on an issue that has nothing to do with the change. Sorry for the length of this, but it is frustrating that it is almost impossible to work on this article. Thank you. Psyc12 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies Itszippy for replying on your personal talk page, to psyc12's false allegations and accusations of bad faith. Psyc12, the significant changes you made to the article while we were discussing Richardkeatinges excellent point that it is very bloated and 'overloaded,' I have not undone. So that is false. Further, recent edits I have made reducing some verbiage have been commended by other editors. Your close friend (outside of Wikipedia), iss246, and you are the ones who guard this article like it is your property, rather than Wikipedia's. Articles are the property of no editor. Richardkeatinges comments have been ignored by you, even though I agree, this article desperately needs to be streamlined, as he pointed out. Please discuss on my talk page in a civil, respectful manner, any concerns you have and we can surely work through them to achieve an excellent article for wikipedia.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks you two for the messages. I've just briefly skimmed the talk page (very briefly) - I really don't have the time or the patience to read the entire dispute. As far as I can tell, this article has been a source of contention for a very long time - at this point, I am not convinced that just continuing discussion without outside support will help. I would strongly recommend that you seek support - WP:DRN would be your best bet. If necessary, I can help you file a case there and get things moving. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
ItsZippy. We have already tried getting outside support through WhatamIdoing, and it has not helped. Mrm7171 continues the same behavior, and now has more editors to argue with and attack. The issue isn't disagreement over content, that other editors could help resolve, but rather the intimidating effect Mrm7171's behavior is having on other editors who don't have time to spend many many hours just to change a couple of words. Psyc12 (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The reason I suggested WP:DRN is that it is a much more structured form of dispute resolution. It's purpose it to deal with seemingly intractable issues like this one in a quasi-formal manner, in a way that just getting the opinion from an outside editor does not. It is not perfect, and it relies on all parties being willing to listen to each other and compromise; however, it has more chance of bringing resolution to this conflict than just continuing the present discussion. If you really think that Mrm7171's behaviour is so problematic that he's disrupting Wikipedia and not working for the good of the project, then I suggest you go to WP:ANI. If you do so, you will need strong evidence to show the disruption caused, and must realise that you behaviour will also be scrutinised. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you ItsZippy. The issue here is not so much disputes over content, but rather one editor's behavior that is disrupting work on this article. Do you think WP:DRN can help with that sort of problem? Psyc12 (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi itsszippy. I agree with this approach. The issue here is Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I have considered dispute resolution but have hoped that iss246/psyc12, who are good friends outside of Wikipedia and members of the same SOHP community and have been acting as a tag team, prevewnting any changes to this article. I also would provide strong contrary evidence based on the objective edit history and every single personal attack and accusation of bad faith I have endured, if I was falsely accused of any conduct issues. That is completely false. An example recently of ownership of this article by psyc12/iss246 is that another independent editor, Richardkeatinge suggested what I also believe are necessary changes to reduce the large overload and bloat in the article, which again, both iss246/psyc12, unsurprisingly flatly refused to change anything at at all. This has been the issue all the way through and the true cause of walls of text. I would be open to work in a structured way with an outside, completely independent editor as part of dispute resolution. I don't see any other way now, as this article desperately requires some neutrality and some significant changes. I would be very willing to listen and compromise as I posted on psyc12 and iss246 talk pages recently, but again they flatly refused because of ownership of the article. So I do believe dispute resolution is now required.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, WP:DRN only works if all parties can assume good faith. If we can all drop the accusations of ownership, disruptive editing, etc and focus solely on the content issues of the dispute, then dispute resolution may be workable. If you want to talk about conduct issues, dispute resolution will not work. ANI is the place to take conduct issues, though you will need adequate evidence and be willing to have your own behaviour scrutinised. Thus: If you are willing to stop talking about conduct, please file a case at the DRN. If you feel you have to talk about conduct, please file a report at ANI. If you feel that you can do neither of these, I suggest you find something else to do on Wikipedia. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair points itszippy. I am completely open to dispute resolution now and will focus on content only and assume good faith. I believe the article concerning professional matters in psychology and psychologists are important and the article requires some significant changes and I for one, am willing to work with an independent editor, and to compromise, to achieve some good outcomes and neutrality for the Wikipedia article. The disputes are definitely over content. Thanks for your advice.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
ItsZippy. It sounds to me like WP:DRN will not work. The disruptive editor has gotten lots of feedback from various editors including Ronz and WhatamIdoing about his/her behavior. He/she takes no responsibility for his/her actions. We have had independent editors come in to help, such as Bilby, Richard Keatinge, and WhatamIdoing, but if anything it made things worse because now there were more people to fight with. Thank you for all the advice. Psyc12 (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Psyc, if you really feel that you cannot edit collaboratively with Mrm, then I suggest you stay away from OHP until you can resolve your problems. If you really believe that Mrm if disruptive, go to ANI; if you don't want to do that, stop editing the page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Good advice. Thanks. By the way, the claim that I "flatly refused" to change anything is incorrect. What started this last problem was the fact that I responded to Richard Keatinge with some suggestions of how to accomplish what he proposed, and added a single sentence to show what I had in mind. Mrm7171 decided that I was not allowed to make any edits to the page and undid it--twice. Psyc12 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks itszippy. Psyc12, for the last time please focus on content and assume good faith rather than fabricate and deflect. I am happy to have these issues resolved by an independent editor as itszippy has suggested and will initiate this process myself if necessary, as I feel nothing will change in the article if I don't. Dispute resolution probably should have been used a long time ago. The changes to the article are needed. If you say you have not opposed Richardkeatinge's comments that the article is "overloaded with details about what exactly OHP researchers have done, and how they have done it" and research sections are "overblown and rely too heavily on primary sources," just let me make those edits he has quite rightly suggested please. Apologies itszippy for conversing on your talk page. Thanks for your help.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Your involvement with DRN

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Odd editing (revert) at the Iren. Theodicy page and the Augustinian Theodicy page

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi ItsZippy. Just a short message of a sudden revert made by someone else to the consensus edit made between the 3 of us with Quadrell on the LEDE in the Augustinian Theodicy page and the Iren. Theodicy page from a week or two ago. When I looked up that editor's contrib list, he appears to have a long history of edit warring and section deletions. (Especially the Max Weber Page). Since this was a consensus edit between the 3 of us, could I ask that these 2 pages be restored and the pages protected maybe for a week or so. (disruptive editor ref name, b ink.) If you could possibly look into this. 209.3.238.61 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I like the changes. I think that removing that specific mention of Hick from lead resolves the problem you had just as well as our alternative wording and, as Binksternet notes in his edit summary, our new wording was somewhat clumsy. Binksternet is not being disruptive here, nor is he editing against consensus. Instead, he is boldly making what he thinks (and I agree) is a beneficial edit to the page, and supplying a reason. Just because we agreed on something two weeks ago, it does not mean that it must stay that way forever - it is entirely possible that people's opinions change or, as in this case, another editor with a different opinion chooses to get involved with the article. When that happens, a new consensus should be sought. Protection is certainly not appropriate here - we only protect a page to prevent people causing disruption (edit warring, vandalism, etc); we never protect an article to secure a version of the article we prefer. The correct response in this situation is to start discussion on the talk page (that's exactly what Quadell did when he saw edits of yours that he was unsure about). If you don't like what Biskternet's done, I suggest you do that. Also, you might find it useful to have a look at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which further explains this core principle of Wikipedia. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the calm, measured response, ItsZippy. I looked at 209's contributions and found some that needed fixing; the two theodicy articles were among them because of clumsy wording, especially clumsy with regard to FA status. I noticed that Hick is mentioned later in each of the two lead sections, but perhaps he should be brought higher up so that his involvement can be discussed earlier. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion on Iren theodicy and Augustinian theodicy is presently on the Iren. Theodicy Talk page and should continue there if there are new comments after the previous consensus edit. User:Bink is presently trying to block an Admin report which I have been trying to post on the Weber Talk page for several days by Section deleting material being prepared for Admin review. He is apparently against agreement this editor has with User:Petrus on the Weber edit, and is oddly not mentioning this fact in any of his reports. (See Talk page on Max Weber for edit history and clarification.) 209.3.238.61 (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The best place to discuss Irenaean theodicy is at Talk:Irenaean theodicy; the best place to discuss Augustinian theodicy is at Talk:Augustinian theodicy. Although we did form a brief consensus about Augustinian theodicy at the Irenaean talk page, that is now in the past, as a new discussion is being had about the Augustinian theodicy. We want to make discussion as open as possible to allow anyone who has an opinion to join it, thus we ought to keep the discussion for each article on its own talk page, to make it easily accessible to other readers. I am treating the two articles as separate, as it is likely that a slightly different solution will be required for each one - I suggest you do the same. As for Max Weber, I am not involved in that dispute and do not wish to be. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hujr ibn Adi Page Protection

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello ItsZippy. I see that you have page protected the Hujr ibn Adi article after it being reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. I regret to inform you that I am dismayed by your decision which I believe was taken hastily (within 35 minutes) and without hearing my side of the discussion and not allowing me to defend myself. I had initiated an RfC (Talk:Hujr_ibn_Adi#Request_for_Comment) at the talkpage so as to allow other users to comment. I had believed that admins had to be impartial and should exercise Care and judgement when making their decisions. Shiite (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC) P.S. I have also initiated a WP:SPI on the user that reported me to the admin notice board whom I suspect to be another account of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zabranos.

Shiite, I protected the article because you and a number of others were edit warring there. I made this decision after reading through all relevant material, carefully going through the article's history, and reading the recent discussions on the talk page. I have no opinion in teh dispute at all and my protection was not meant to prefer one version of the article of the other. This is not about you defending yourself - this protection is not a direct action against you (as a block would have been) but a way of preventing further disruption caused by many people edit warring. If you're willing to participate in discussion, this should be no issue for you: sumply continue to discuss the issue on the talk page and, when consensus is reached, the decision can be implemented. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for clarifying. I agree edit warring persisted. Please note that User:Nanner-Nanner has been confirmed to be a sock puppet of User:Zabranos. Is it now possible to unprotect the page as I believe it no longer needs protection. Shiite (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It could be worth removing the protection now Nanner-Nanner is blocked as edit warring will be less likely. However, I see that Edward321 is also involved in the dispute (though only made one revert). I'm willing to remove the protection if you will assure me that you will not continue to edit war on the article (and I don't just mean stay within 3RR, I mean stop edit warring). If you can agree to that, I'll remove the protection. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your unblock

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Thank you. Yworo (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you were right. I could have sworn I hadn't edited the article yesterday and must have misread the history based on that assumption. Could have been sleep editing. :-) Yworo (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

 

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Irenaean theodicy

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Original Barnstar
I just read through Irenaean theodicy, as another user hopes to push it to FA status. I just want to congratulate you on such a carefully written and well researched introduction to the topic; I'm sure many puzzled and panicking students will appreciate the quality of this article! Keep up the good work, J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Coco Voice Page

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi ItsZippy,

I recently created a page for Coco Voice, which is a mobile messaging application for smartphones, that you reviewed and deleted on the grounds of G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I thank you for taking the time first of all to review the article in such a short time, and wanted to express my opinion as well as ask some questions.

I don't think it is exclusively promotional because it included verifiable information from third party sources (see reflist articles). In addition, the origin of the application can be verified through the application website, and the version updates can be verified on the iTunes and Google Play stores. I understand that company websites should not be used as a source for verification, so that is why I put the links to the website and app store in the external links section, but the information is definitely correct and not promotional as I erased any language in the article that could seem non-factual or aggrandizing.

In compiling the wikipedia page for Coco Voice, I also looked at how wikipedia pages for other mobile applications were written, and referred to WeChat, LINE (application), Voxer, Kik, KakaoTalk, Path, Nimbuzz. The format and language the other pages used were researched and studied before being implemented on the Coco Voice page, although the content I used was not copied, and only pertains to the Coco Voice application. I think if the Coco Voice page is considered promotional then these other pages could also be flagged for the same reasons.

If I were to make changes to the article for it to be published, how would I go about doing so? Could you be more specific in the areas which you thought were promotional or of an advertising nature? Could you also send me the article content in which you deleted because I did not have a copy of it saved and cannot seem to access it anywhere.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddflu (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Library Survey

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ItsZippy/Archive_19&oldid=1168301883"