User talk:ItsZippy

This user may have left Wikipedia. ItsZippy has not edited Wikipedia since June 2015 (reborn October 2019 as user WJ94). As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

I am occasionally active here at the moment, depending on how busy life is. If you have general queries, I may not be the best person to ask because I don't have much time. If you have a specific query for me, or would like to ask me about my admin actions, please leave a message here. If I don't reply feel free to drop me an email, but please give me a few days. ItsZippy (talk • contributions)

Archives

July - August 2011 September - October 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 - February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May - June 2013 July - August 2013 September - December 2013 2014 Source

To Leave a New Message Please click here to start a new Section. Remember to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

If you leave me a message I will usually reply on this page, please watch it. I shall use the talkback template in some cases to notify you. Thanks. If I leave you a message Please reply to it on your own talkpage - I will be watching your talkpage. Feel free to use the talkback template if you need my attention. Thanks.

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I should have the summary done in a few minutes; please look it over when you get a chance. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, looks good today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. An editor has asked for unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ItsZippy, thanks for protecting Mattress Performance recently, but would you consider extending it to long-term semi-protection or even indefinite? There's enormous potential for BLP violations against both parties, and on other sites some of the most vicious comments I've ever seen. Within minutes of your removing protection, an IP added the lawsuit, [1] which several editors agreed on talk yesterday not to add. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah. Thanks notifying me; I've semi-protected the article for 1 month. I'll also keep an eye on the article and discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to close this AfD as delete? I don't see a strong consensus, nevertheless one for deletion. – czar 01:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar. I deleted Earn to Die 2 because I saw a consensus, albeit a weak one, for deletion. Mathematically, I counted 4 in favour deletion to 3 in favour of keeping the article (counting the userfy vote as a delete because the intent of the vote was to take the article off Wikipedia article space). Two of the votes for deletion regarded Google Play downloads and coverage on a YouTube channel, which do little to establish notability. Although two of the delete votes primarily deal with these issues, there were also concerns raised regarding the quality of the sources too, which I thought tipped the balance towards deletion. Having said that, I recognise that this is not an uncontentious call, and I would be happy to hear a second opinion from another uninvolved admin. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLOSEAFD says, "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." I don't see how the policy-backed consensus supports deletion in any way, especially considering the dearth of policy-backed arguments at all. The arguments not backed by policy contribute very little towards consensus at AfD. I showed several sources vetted by the video games WikiProject that were sufficient for the GNG.  – czar 00:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Thanks for your reply. Having considered this further, I'm happy to concede that my closure of this particular AFD was probably not reflective of consensus. I wasn't just counting votes, but I admit that I gave too much weight to the deletion arguments in closing the debate. I would be happy to reopen this AFD and relist it for a week, and leave closing it to another admin. Does that sound acceptable to you? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I appreciate your reconsideration. – czar 13:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ItsZippy,

I have previously asked for full protection for Adam Schefter wikipedia page. Semi-protection was granted for one month however, users are already editing it with harmful information. Only 3 days after the semi-protection was put on a user edited his personal page and added that he was jewish. Please reconsider the original ruling and give Adam Schefter page a full protection so the false and harmful information can stop.

Thank you. Sportsfan191920 (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HI Sportsfan. I put pending changes protection on the Adam Schefter article because it was the subject of BLP violations and related childish vandalism, consisting in people adding or changing information without a source and writing tasteless jokes about Schefter. The editors who are writing that Schefter is Jewish do not fall into the same category, as they are writing in good faith and with a reliable source ([2]). In the most recent edit, the point was made more subtly ([3]). Full protection is reserved for pages which are being disrupted by the actions confirmed users, which is not the case here. I suggest that, if you disagree with how some editors are editing the article, you take it up with them on the talk page. Additionally, I must remind you that this is not Adam Schefter's "personal page"; no-one owns any Wikipedia pages, even if they are the subject of the article. Of course, we are always very careful to keep our articles about living people neutral and reliable, and operate a higher level of scrutiny on these pages; however that does not translate into the right of the subject of an article to dictate what is and is not included in their article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else is now reverting my edits to the page. It's an unregistered user. Just thought I'd inform you. (Edit 7/29/15): Sportsfan just reverted it again even after you explained that my edit was legitimate. This needs to stop.--Cg41386 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, this is one of the most ridiculously bureaucratic decisions I have seen here for a long time. Thankfully, it seems that some other people thought pretty much the same: the edits were reverted and a further warning/explanation was left. If you cannot see that the four edits were (a) disruptive, (b) warring, (c) violations of GFDL, (d) inappropriate and (e) actually four reverts from the common-sense perspective usually found at AN3 then, really, I think you should step away from taking action on that noticeboard and just watch it for a while. There has never been a prior occasion when I have gone to AN3 with a similar set of diffs and come away with nothing.

I am sorry to be blunt about this but I'm fed up of seeing over-officious admins adding to the problems that we already have in the India-Pakistan area of Wikipedia. You're supposed to be here to help the purpose of the encyclopaedia, not hinder it. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

For the brackets section, Switzerland has not yet assured the 3rd spot where they face Canada per FIFA. Should revert back to 3rd Place C/D/E until after tomorrow's final group matches.

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ItsZippy, on the advice of Bonadea I am contacting you about an article that you deleted after this deletion discussion

I discovered that article while doing research for reliable citations and notable references for an article I now have in draft mode on the same topic. I wholeheartedly concur that the original article did not conform to Wikipedia best practices. I am writing about IssueTrak, the software, because it is important and noteworthy in the help desk and customer service support industries. One of the editors in the deletion discussion even made the following comment about it "...Honestly, I feel that the software is on the more significant side, but unfortunately, anything that could be cited or referenced is not 3rd party. - Pmedema (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)" It is unfortunate that IssueTrak, the company, failed in the past to generate any significantly notable articles about IssueTrak the software. It seems they put their efforts into making a great product rather than publicizing it (can't really fault them for that.)

My research has uncovered sources which I believe to be significant and were published since that May 2012 discussion. Sources include Microsoft, Gartner Research, and the U.S. General Services Administration. I have two questions.

1. Is there any type of permanent ban of any articles about IssueTrak software?
2. Would it be possible to review my draft to determine credibility of the sources I cite?

Thank you for your time and consideration. SoftwareNinja (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin ItsZippy, I want to report an issue in Abrahamic Religions page. during time, now and some years ago, we had some issues with some people trying to put the name of some rare and unfamiliar religions among major ones ( Judaism, Christianity, Islam ). I suggest them to put these names in secondary list but didn't accept. You helped us some years ago to resolve a dispute to remove their logo from top of page. please refer to this date on page : 10:44, 13 September 2013

I don't know why, but they have support of one of admins too, admin : Favonian. this admin blocked the changes on mentioned date but you removed the block. now he is doing same thing. he blocked my ID permanently (wiki_hamze).

I had a very simple and logical argument, just these extremely rare, none historical and new religions must be mentioned in secondary list.... but Favonian seems to have an issue to support this idea.

moreover he accused me to have multiple account but I didn't. just my room-mate supported my idea ( obviously from same IP). please help us to resolve this issue. thanks Hamze wiki (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki hamze/Archive explains the "issues" that I supposedly have. Hamze wiki is the third sock to show up after the SPI was closed. Favonian (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Three years ago ...

philosophy of religion
... you were recipient no. 355 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Five. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and six --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and seven --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TomChannell (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ItsZippy, are you able to get my edits from the Seedrs page which I made yesterday back on to my user page? It'd be much appreciated.

Thanks, Tom

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Closed***

Hi, Few days back a page named "Zaki Ameer" [4] was created by someone and an administrator had deleted the page under the criteria of speedy deletion (A7 and G11). I don't know what that person had added at the time. But now I want to retrieve the page and recreate it. I have content and reliable sources as well for the content. Can you help with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arif Rizvi (talk • contribs) 08:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

¿Hola cómo estás? ¿Cómo te llamas?

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ATTINGAL PARVATHIPURAM GRAMOM - SREE MAHA GANAPATHY TEMPLE. Since you had some involvement with the ATTINGAL PARVATHIPURAM GRAMOM - SREE MAHA GANAPATHY TEMPLE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kantian ethics has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]