User talk:ItsZippy/Archive 7

Poke

This is a poke to find further input on the following DR/N: [1]

Please feel free to weigh in.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Amadscientist. I'm a little pushed for time at the moment, with other on and off wiki priorities. I shall have a look at the discussion if and when I have more time to spare. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Augustinian theodicy

Hey, just wanted to drop a note to say that I'm impressed with your continued improvements and expansions to Augustinian theodicy. It's great to see an article about a theological topic with this much reliable, sourced information. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 23:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate the comment. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

plzz

can you help me out to make it nuetral?? Virinchi523 (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Ocaasi has made some significant contributions to the article. I will have a look at it myself though to see what else could be improved. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

yup done man our page i ready now do have a look at it and give in your suggestions cheerz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virinchi523 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll continue to watch the page and make improvements when I can. You've done well - thanks for your persistent work on it. By the way, when indenting, use colons (:) rather than spaces, otherwise it does not work. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

oh ok ok but one problem is there man one of my pics uploaded is having some sort of a problem it is said that it woukd be deleted can you help me out?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virinchi523 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The picture you uploaded has been tagged for deletion because it does not have the right copyright information. Do you know the copyright status of the image, or where it came from? If you took it yourself, then you'll need to put the correct tag on the page. If the image is from another organisation, chances are, it is copyrighted. If you let me know where you got the image from, then I can advise you on what to do with it. If the image is copyrighted, then it may have to be deleted. You can find information about copyright tags on this page, but if you need further information, just ask me. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

see thw images are sole work of our group no dada no kkr the pics were of the protest march that we have done the 16th jan all the details of it can be seen in our group everything is purely original so can you doo anything now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virinchi523 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you know who took the photos? Have they been released into the public domain? Also, please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each post. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

he memebrs of our group took it they have been posted in our group which is a public domain got

it??  Virinchi523 (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Scooterboy

Hello ItsZippy. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Scooterboy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: article is different to that deleted - see page history. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you - I'd missed that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Augustinian theodicy/archive2.
Message added 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. This article is good research, but I still find it difficult to comprehend. I have added a suggestion in this regard, however may be an expert can guide you better. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Augustinian theodicy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Five Ways and The Fall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Talky Baccy

Hello, ItsZippy. You have new messages at Pedro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mohammad A. Quayum

Dear ItsZippy, hi. I note you closed this Mohammad Quayum but I think the article got moved to Mohammad A. Quayum part way through the Afd. And as of writing Mohammad A. Quayum is still in need of the tidying up (the Afd note removing). I contributed to the article and the Afd to try to save it - so I don't think it appropriated to tidy up myself. Just letting you know and best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC))

Ah, thanks for the note - I hadn't noticed the page move. I've finished that closure off now - the AfD notice has been removed and the talk page updated. Thanks for your work on improving the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your neutral !vote at my RfA

Could you clarify your vote for me. This is not at attempt to change your mind, but rather I'd like to learn from oppose and neutral votes (and come to that support votes if they're useful in that regard) and don't think I fully understand your vote at the moment. Specifically what do you mean by "I am not convinced that it he will avoid stressful situations, as I think this lengthy justification suggests". Are you saying, generally, that you don't think I avoid stressful situations and using IAR as an example or that you think my stance on IAR will lead me to stressful situations? Dpmuk (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, DPmuk. My concern was that your interpretation of IAR (which, though I disagree with, I do not think is sufficient to oppose you on) seems to have led to difficult/stressful situations, such as the issue that I (and you have previously) linked to. My problem is not with your interpretation of the policy, but that it has (recently) caused a significant issue between you and other editors. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK. You are aware that was over 18 months ago? Only asking because I wouldn't consider that recent and so wonder if you've misread something. If you do consider that as recent that's fine - I was expecting some oppose votes because of what happened there so I certainly have no problems with an explained, well-thought out neutral because of it. Dpmuk (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My goodness, you're right. I'd completely overlooked that - I'm sorry. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Vividly Designated!

Hi Zippy, first of all, thanks for the help! I sure could use it. It is my first try at making a page and I think, after studying other pages, I did pretty good! But, maybe you are right and I was a bit too technical...Sorry, I can be that way. However, your revision seems to be incorrect on one point. The difference between a rigid designator and a vivid designator is that a rigid one really is the same in all possible worlds, while a vivid designator is only believed to be so, This means that in reality, there are no rigid designators, but only vivid designators, but this last part, of course, is my private opinion. Anyway, since you are more in-tune with how people read things, would you look at it again and change this?

Thank!

Oh, by the way, there might be one or two more changes that could use your eye. If you have the time and are willing, I'd appreciate your input!

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it again, I am wondering if you think your edit an improvement, because the difficult way of saying it has to do with the fact that it is a difficult thing that it refers to. Sometimes there are no easy ways of saying it I think. Another consideration is that only specialists will look at this term. Who else would encounter it? If you take these things in your evaluation, do you still think your edit is useful? I hope you don't ge me wrong, I am just trying to determine what the best solution would be and to determine, for future reference, how to look at this sort of thing. Would you spell it out for me?

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Fan Singh Long. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - modal logic is not really my favourite part of philosophy. I will try to rectify the article; if you still believe that what I've added is incorrect, feel free to change it again. Also, you are right that most readers of the article will have some prior philosophical knowledge - that is why certain terms, such as modal logic, probably don't need explanation. A good guide for academic topics is to consider the level at which something would be first taught, and then imagine someone at the level below reading it. I guess that this kind of thing might be found in a university course, so consider it being read a philosophy student at college or in a Sixth Form. There are still things which need clarification (just a brief explanation after each occurrence of a word). I would try to help more with that but, as I said, I'm not too strong on modal logic. Despite that, I am impressed, especially as this is your first article. It does need improvement, but that's no bad thing. Keep up the good work. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the compliments Zippy, you make me feel like trying my hand at it again sometime. I will take everything you said with me and sleep over it. I'll let you know what I think. Thanks again.

Oh, by the way, I asked before, but maybe you missed it: WOuld you take a look at some more things I have edited? If you are busy someone else will run into it eventually I guess, but I would like some more feedback if you are willing to give it.

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's wonderful - we need more people capable of improving Wikipedia's coverage of philosophy, so I'm glad you're so willing to contribute and take constructive feedback. I'd be more than happy to have a look at anything else you've done - just post a link to it here and I'll take a look. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zippy, I think I have edited it to a version that we can both live with. I reconstructed the reference that you displaced and added a small connotation that you edited out with it. I thik it is essential to see the historical development of the chain of thought that produced this term. And that is, to me,often the key to understanding a term properly. This in comnination with the fact that this term will not be handled in the first two years of a philosophical education makes me believe that we should not be too careful with difficult sentences. Please tell me what you think about it.

I want to know if you purposefully rephrased the opening explanation of the term into an easier wording, and not the way Quine uses it. I think this is because a general explanation must be easier than one specific point of view, because a specific point of view is always more specialised?

I also want to know if yo purposefully made 'vivid designator' bold only once (the first time it is mentioned on a page)? It might be some standardthat I am unaware of.

The pages I want to have some feedback on are:

• Salva Congruitate
• Salve Veritate

Later I would like the same for these pages, but I am still thinking about adding some things:

• Existential Generalization
• Universal Instantiation

Thanks again Zippy!

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Your recent edit looks good (and I'm sorry for breaking the reference; I didn't mean to). I did reword the opening sentence to make it clearer, yes. I think we need to strike the right balance between clarity and accuracy. The lead (that is, the opening section before any headings) should be a concise overview of the rest of the article (see WP:LEAD for more info) and should be the most accessible part. Anything overly technical should be avoided, and complex terms should be explained. This is because the lead is the section that people read first and, if someone wants to quickly look something up, it is the only section they will read. The rest of the article can be more detailed - anyone reading the full article is likely to have a background in philosophy.

A really good start has been made to the article, but (as with almost every article on Wikipedia), it could do with expansion. I would suggest you have an overview section, a section on the history/development of the idea, and then a section on its reception (What have other philosophers said? Who has criticised the idea?). To your other question: yes, I did unbold the term through the rest of the article. Our guideline suggests that only the first occurrence of an article's title should be in bold face. You're going in the right direction, which is really good, and I'm sure you'll make a good job of this.

Finally, thanks for the links to those other articles. I will take a look at them later on, make any obvious improvements I can see, and post feedback on your talk page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zippy, thanks again for your patience with me, the new editor on the block. I think I got the general idea on what a lead should be. I'll definately keep it in my mind for now. I am not sure if I want to keep on editing the page, but the historical creation of the term is actually quite interesting i think. So....perhaps... I'll keep an eye out for your remarks and edits on the salva's. Hey, I already un-boldened the mentions of the term after the first!

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S.:I wanted to say that I do not hate talkback templates, but I am watching your page so there is no need for them.

And thank you for sticking at it and responding so well to feedback - it is refreshing to see. I'm glad I've been able to help; if you ever need any more support, I'm more than happy. And I'm sorry I have not looked at those other articles yet (I've been a little preoccupied) - I'll try to either later this evening or tomorrow. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Today, your lover is more important than wikipedia Zippy! Mine is showering, what is your excuse?

;)

Take your time, it'll happen when it'll happen.

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I'm afraid I'm not preoccupied with a lover; sorry to disappoint. ;-) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just sorry to be disappointed Zippy. I hope you don't feel lonely on a day like this.

All the best,

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry - I'm not. To be honest, I'd forgotten it was Valentine's Day until you mentioned it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Per this! Thank you for your aid to newer users! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And well earned it is!

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MedCab

I'm sorry but I don't believe that to be correct. The decision of the RFC was to include political leaders, the dispute was how that should be achieved. That Thatcher alone should be presented as the sole political leader is misleading. The refusal to engage in discussion and simply demand that only Margaret Thatcher should be there is the root of the problem - and remember we're talking about 3-4 extra words. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WCM, I do not want to bring the dispute to my talk page. If you disagree with my perception of the current consensus, please raise that at the Mediation case page, so that all involved can see and respond. In addition, I am not proposing any opinion at all in this dispute - I have no real preference as to how the infobox is displayed - I am simply noting what seems to me to be the consensus at the moment. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I did so, further rather than bringing the dispute to your talk page, I was responding to your message. As regards your perception of consensus, may I ask how consensus can be achieved if you simply dismiss a quite reasonable point without considering it? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that fine - I just want to make sure that the process is transparent; if you are replying to my message, that's ok. I don't quite know what you mean by my dismissing of a reasonable point - I do not believe that I have done that. The consensus here was that Margaret Thatcher alone should be included as the leader for Britain. You may disagree with that view, but that is how I interpret the consensus. I will raise this specific issue on the MedCab talk page, to see what other mediators make of the issue. If people there suggest that the consensus is not how I perceive it to be, then I shall accept that. Until then, perhaps you could present your position on what should if done if the consensus is as I perceive it - that way, we'll be able to move forward with the mediation. If other mediators then say otherwise, we can make the necessary changes. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to anything you said, I was referring to the fact that whenever I tried to raise a point with reference to the War Cabinet, it was summarily dismissed without considering it. I offered several compromises, all were simply reverted. How can you have a consensus if there isn't a discussion on the merits of a proposed edit? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we I will see what other mediators have to say on the issue. I don't want you to feel as if the points you have raised have been ignored and, if other mediators think that a fuller discussion of the issue is necessary, then we shall pursue that. If the other mediators accept my interpretation, will you accept that? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I will but I would say if my points hadn't been so summarily ignored I doubt it would ever have come to MedCab. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm here as a fellow mediator of ItsZippy pursuant to his request in this edit at the MedCab talk page. I'm not sure that we need to get to an evaluation of whether or not consensus did or did not actually exist (but neither am I certain that we do not need to get to it either). WCM says above, "whenever I tried to raise a point with reference to the War Cabinet, it was summarily dismissed without considering it. I offered several compromises, all were simply reverted. How can you have a consensus if there isn't a discussion on the merits of a proposed edit?" Are you saying, WCM, that

• you offered these compromises via editing the text of the article and your edits were reverted

or, on the other hand, are you saying that

• you offered them on the article talk page or on the mediation talk page and they were reverted?

Whichever was the case, when you say "whenever I tried to raise a point with reference to the War Cabinet, it was summarily dismissed without considering it" do you mean those reversions, or do you mean something else? — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the answer you're seeking is that I did all of the above. I offered a compromise by editing the article, which when it was reverted I went to the talk page, I waited 2 weeks for a response and having received none edited again only for it to be reverted. I also proposed compromise edits in talk and asked the other editors to discuss my concerns only for them to be dismissed both in talk and at MedCab.

I was also unhappy with the comments at WP:MILHIST, which was basically a call for back up framing me as a disruptive editor [2], which is exactly what Steve has continued to do at MedCab. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Tyop

Hi IZ ... just wanted to let you know that you may have made a tyop at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Carroll, so I thought I would mention it to you in the event you do not have the pg watchlisted, so you can address it if you like. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi Zippy, it's me again, this time with a more difficult problem at hand. I would like to add a page on the psychoanalytical term phylogenesis, or phylogeny. However, there is a redirect from there to phylogenetics. Since the psychoanalytical term has nothing to do with the makeup of cells, I would like to create a new page (really short, because I know next to nothing about it). However, it would probably mean problems for the redirect and a disambiguation page seems unavoidable. Could you spare me a moment to help me out with what would be the best idea here? For an idea of what the psychoanalytical term is about, look at my proposed addition in ontogeny. Thanks in advane! --Fan Singh Long (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your message. If the topic you wish to create is indeed sufficiently different, then you can create the page out of the redirect. To do this, type the name of your desired page into to search bar and go; it will then redirect you. Once at the target page, look just under the title, where it will say (Redirected from Phylogenesis) and click this link. You will then be taken to the correct page and can edit that page. Once the two different pages exist, the merits of using a disambiguation page can be discussed; I;d recommend you create the new page first, though. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zippy, thanks for the feedback. I was thinking of creating both the new page and the disambiguation page at the same time, but will the redirect page not be missed, or create problems for not being there anymore?

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think they should go together in one page?

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds fine. The redirect page won't be missed, no. Redirect pages often exist where there is not an article about a specific subject, so users who are looking for it are pointed to the nearest thing. In this case, as you will be creating an article specifically about that subject, it will be beneficial to create it out of the redirect. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zippy, thanks for the feedback again. I am still thinking of creating both pages at once, but I am having 2 concerns:

• I received a message from a bot saying that I had placed a link to a disambiguation page. That is what is going to happen now I guess.
• Perhaps the subjects are not so different. Perhaps I should attempt to modify the main article somewhat making it more plausible that a small corner is reserved for psychoanalysis?

What do you think?

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The message from the bot just means that you've wikilinked to a disambiguation page on another article. It shouldn't have any effect regarding this. As for the section question, I don't really know the subjects well enough. I think you need to decide whether you think the two concepts have more or less in common than not with each other. If the are similar, add it to the current article; if not create a new one. If I were you, I'd get started and not worry too much about getting it exactly right. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it is easy to change someone once you've started; if you opt for one and then later decide that the other would be better, it is easy to change it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zippy,

• You are right and I should not worry too much. I will let it rest for a little while (I have a holiday coming up maybe I will let it rest until after that) and then I will decide what to do and execute it. There are arguments for both options I think, I will make a list for myself and see what it balances out to.
• With the remark about the bot I meant that it wasn't a disambiguation page before (I think) and if I make the disambiguation page, many links will suddenly refer to a disambiguation page. The bot will work overtime! And I also think many people will have made efforts that I will destroy, but again, I should not worry too much.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback!

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. If you are turning a page into a disambiguation page, it is good to fix the links and point them to the correct place. To do think, you can click 'What links here', in the toolbox section on the right. That will give you a list of all the links to the page; you can then find the relevant link and change it so that it points to the correct page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks again!

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Uuhm...where in the editing-toolbox (I assume) can I find this button?

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The toolbox should be on the left hand side (sorry, I know I said right earlier). The dropdown should include a link to What Links Here. Alternatively, you can use Special:WhatLinksHere. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What if there are 1000 links? I don't like this idea anymore... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan Singh Long (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There won't be. And if you really don't want to, you can leave it (just be sure to mention it to someone). If you need me to, I can probably use AWB to very quickly fix any links - just let me know. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There are 1000...

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, don't worry. As I said, just do what you want to with the pages and if you need me to fix any links, just let me know (be sure to specify exactly which links need to change). I have access to AWB, which can do that kind of thing very quickly. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am goign to edit the page that is present now. It will benefit everyone I think. I am doing this mainly because a page on the psychoanalytical equivalent would be short if I have to write it. So, for now the additional value of having one page in which it is combined will broaden everyone's mindset.

Would you be so kind to take a look at my proposal on the talk page? I would appreciate some feedback.

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll reply on that page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel bold today!

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Books of the Bible

Hi, just wondering, did you intend to close this review as "failed" ? On the nominations page it's still showing up as "review in progress". Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes; I'd forgotten to do that - thank you for reminding me. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Quorum of Motion Picture Producers

I invite you back to the AFD discussion and offer that you take a look and the sources so-far added to the article. As improvement is easily do-able, and has actually begun, perhaps you might be inclined to change your "Cautious delete" to a cautious keep. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Michael. I would have changed my vote based on what was found, but the discussion has been closed as keep anyway. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Glad to save that one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Religious language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scholastic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD for romney neologism

Two other editors have made a proposal that we should merge the romney neologism article into the Seamus (dog) article. Although I originally voted for keep, I like the merge idea because the two topics are related, it allows us to retain the core material without having to justify a whole article on it, and it eliminates the issue of undue weight.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwainwr123 (talk • contribs)

My RfA

Thanks for jumping in quickly with kind words to support my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of informative page - no promotion at all?!

Hey Peridon

Can you please provide me with your reference to 'promotion' - I clearly thought I provided a useful resource / informative article...I am not sure anymore what I can write. I think you should better clarify please to users what we can write / can do...

Many thanks for your reply

Angie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobsiteuk (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jobsiteuk, you seem to have confused me with another user. I am ItsZippy; if you wish to contact Peridon, you can get to his talk page by clicking here. I will let him you that you've left this message on my page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure why you were chosen - it was Mean as custard that tagged. I've answered at length on Jobsiteuk's page. Peridon (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Saval

I would ask that you revist the article on Manuel Saval to see that it has gone through some major changes,[3] and then perhaps reconsider your delete vote at the AFD. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse updates

Hi ItsZippy! A few updates for you about Wikipedia:Teahouse, since you're one of our awesome Teahouse hosts!:

• The host lounge is open! Please take time to review the materials in the space and start contributing to the how-to pages. Your input is valuable. Not only is it great practice to get our minds thinking like hosts, but, you can also provide easy to understand instructions and sound bites for fellow hosts!
• Join the conversation by participating on the host lounge talk pages[4][5]. We also have an IRC channel now for hosts to get to know one another, develop your skills, and eventually the channel will serve as an additional help space for new editors!

• To visit the IRC channel: #wikipedia-teahouse ^connect (Feel free to ask me for help if you're having trouble connecting!)

• Let new editors get to know you by creating your Teahouse profile. Contribute your profile on the host page at the Teahouse! This serves as a fun way for new editors to get to know the people behind the usernames. You can post a photograph of yourself or an avatar, add a quote about yourself or something you enjoy, and share projects and activities you participate on wiki (with wikilinks).

Very exciting things are taking place, and we'll be opening the Teahouse no later than Monday. Feel free to ping me on or off wiki, and I can't wait to work with you to welcome new editors with a warm cup of tea :) SarahStierch (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename Page

I see you that renamed the page Darrell Lunsford to Murder of Darell Lunsford instead. Only thing is that there is a typo in the name "Darrell" it has two r's instead of one. Please could you rename the article to the correct spelling. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk • contribs) 12:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for letting me know - that was a mistake on my part. I have fixed the page now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Help request

Hello, I was wondering if you could help me? I can't seem to find the way to upload a picture for my artical. HTcreager (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Teahouse is Open!

Hi Zippy! Great news: The Teahouse is open for business! We're ready to start inviting new users, answering questions and inspiring one another. If you haven't already taken a look at the links provided in the most recent Teahouse update, posted on your talk page, please do! Don't forget to add yourself to the Host page if you haven't already. What's next? Inviting hosts and reporting your invitation information.

• Please familiarize yourself with this brief rundown of your responsibilities as a Teahouse host.
• Use the invitation guide to invite new users and report your invites.
• Make sure you have the Q&A page on your watch page and dive in when answers get asked! Feel free to ask your own questions - either seeking help or inspiring others to share their projects, ideas and inspiration for editing.

See you at the Teahouse! SarahStierch (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Zippy! Just dropping by to let the hosts know about some new suggestions I've made based on interactions at the Teahouse thus far. Please take a look when you can! Thanks and see you at the Teahouse. New suggestions regarding Q&A participation for hosts. SarahStierch (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

of Sadler, that was really a fun article to write. He is quite the paradox. I hadn't heard of the Urantia book until a couple weeks ago, which surprised me--I thought I had heard of all the 20th century American new religious movements. I pinged someone about an independent copyedit last night, so that should be taken of before long. I know I'll be tempted to try to bring this to FAC eventually, but I'll have a bit of work to do to satisfy the comprehensiveness criteria.

Also, I really thought we were going to get Prosperity theology passed over the weekend. Typically they just need three supports plus an image and spotcheck--I guess since one of the supporters turned out to be a banned sock we don't get to count him. Oh well, we'll get it there sooner or later... Also, I'll try to give the Augustinian theodicy article a good look. I took a couple classes about Augustine back in my college days, so hopefully I can recall some of that. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem - it was quite interesting to review. I'd never heard of him before, but he seemed to be quite an interesting (if slightly odd) person. A copyedit would be a good idea - I might have a look at it myself tonight; I'm not brilliant at copyediting, but I'll do what I can. Best of luck if you take it to FAC.

It does seem to be taking some time, but I guess that's natural - they want make sure it really is of high enough quality. I'm happy to just wait and make any necessary edits. Have you notified the guys at the Christianity WikiProject; there might be a few there would would have a look. I'd appreciate you taking a look at Augustinian theodicy; it's the first I've taken to FAC alone. Also, if you have time, would you mind reviewing the GAN at religious language? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I pinged Noleander about a review on his talk page, he's pretty active with reviews so he might take us up on that. I'll try to check out religious language if I have time, there are a couple of reviews I'm trying to finish at FAC at the moment. Talk to you later, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it seems like he's reviewing as we speak. And don't worry if you don't get round to the religious language review (it's not urgent). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations, it looks like we both got our first Featured Article today. Hopefully there will be many more to come... It was a pleasure working with you! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah that's wonderful - thanks for all the work you've put in. I've really enjoyed working on this article with you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for your help

Thnk you for the help. But I'm still a little confused. I've only been working on his for a month now and I haven't figured everything out yet...

HTcreager (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear ItsZippy/Archive 7: 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/09 January 2012/Falklands War

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) 21:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)