This is an archive of past discussions about User:ItsZippy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What are your requirements for granting rollback? It varies from sysop to sysop and my student wants to know how many reversions he has to perform to be granted rollback. Thank you, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC).
I have no specific requirements (not a number of reverts, or anything). Generally, I will look through a user's contributions and check all of their recent reverts (I'll usually go through about 50) and make sure they're all/mostly accurate, and then make a judgement as to whether they should be granted rollback. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)15:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I have a student whom I hope to graduate soon. He was referred to us by DBigXRay because he didn't know how to use STiki and was mistaking edits for vandalism. I just don't want those edits to count, if possible. Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC).
On liberty, J.S. Mill
Can't beat the last comment unfortunately but nonetheless — could you take a look at the On Liberty page. Currently its at stub level, but that rank was assigned prior to two weeks ago when it had less than half the current content and no citations. I'm not sure what to do about the intro section, but aside from that I think the page is good-to-go for a new evaluation. Do you have any advise or critiques before I submit for one. --Polsky215 (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Polsky, thanks for the message. You have done a good job on the page; I am impressed. There are some things you could do to improve the article; here are some suggestions:
There are some places where you could do with tightening the language a little. You language is quite flowery (which is not in itself a bad thing), but for Wikipedia its best to cut out anything that is not necessary. In some instances, this also alters the neutrality of the article. For example, in the lead you write "Perhaps the most memorable point made by Mill"; first, the word perhaps adds nothing; also, you should never describe something as 'memorable' (or noteworthy/significant/whatever) as that is your opinion. It might be that you need someone else to copyedit the article for tone (I often find a fresh pair of eyes helps) - you can make a request at the guide of copyeditors, though it can take a few weeks.
It is great to see you using Mill's work as a source, but you could do with using some more secondary sources. As you are writing about On Liberty, you can use the work as a source for what is in the article; any opinions must be sourced from other places. To that end, you could probably do with expanding the section on reception (indeed, this could be merged with criticism). Find a few more thinkers who have commented on Mill's work and present their opinions (both positive and negative).
It is a minor point, but the reference section is very unwieldy. It is not necessary, but it might be worth changing how you reference, using a bibliography and citing just the author, year and page in text (look at what I've done at Augustinian theodicy or religious language problem as an example, and ask if you need more help).
You do not need to link to J. S. Mill every time you use his name - only link the first occurrence of the word (per WP:OVERLINK).
The article is very good; I think you are close to good article standard, which is probably a good thing to aim for. Have a look at the things I've mentioned and let me know when you've dealt with them - I'll take another look for you. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)19:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I'm having a little trouble finding further criticism, but I'll try to finish that part up today. I'll redo the intro section too. I'm not sure where that info came from any way so its probably better to remove if I can't back it up somewhere. --Polsky215 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Never mind about criticism. I went back to something I read a while ago and realized it had a bunch of pretty quick criticisms. So that should hopefully flesh out the reception section. --Polsky215 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
That's great. It's not a big problem at the moment, but anything you can add is a bonus. Also, do you know of/can you find any other commentary (not necessarily criticism) on the work? Not necessary, but would be helpful. Another quick thing - although the criticism section is well-sourced (I know that you're not just coming up with it yourself), it is written as if it's your own point of view. Instead just naming the criticisms, it is good to link them to a specific thinker (which makes it even more neutral - you are just reporting what others have said). Once you've cleared that up and improved the lead, the article is probably ready for GA - well done! ItsZippy(talk • contributions)15:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Another minor point. When you need to use exactly the same reference twice in an article, you can name them - see WP:REFNAME - it will shorten the reference list and make it tidier. I'll have a go at fixing a few of those myself. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)15:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I see your doing those right now. (May have accidentally screwed one up in an earlier section — you'll see the big red err text). I couldn't figure out how to do those so thats a big help. Ill try to neutralize some more. I got all of those criticisms from sources which were summarizing possible criticisms though they didn't actually state who had criticized in that way. So would it be appropriate to use the name of the author of those sources in the Wikipedia text? --Polsky215 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I still think that it would be good to link the criticism to the author (otherwise, it looks like you are making the criticism yourself, which you are not). If the author is not explicitly criticising the text but mentioning a possible criticism, you could say that - for example, "Author has noted possible criticisms of Mill's work, namely...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsZippy (talk • contribs)
Will do. Also related to the reception, do you think the "narrow focus" section is unnecessary or repetitive when later I have "vague conception of harm"? While about two sentences of "narrow focus" do not relate with harm, the rest of the section—which is already short—is talking about harm. Also, I finished up the reference section and did a little more rephrasing and editing in the intro/body. So once the reception section is cleaned up I think the page is ready. Thanks for the advise. --Polsky215 (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that is much of a problem. If you want to change it then go ahead, but the two sections seem reasonably distinct enough. I've made a few minor tweaks to the article, but I think it's probably ready to be nominated at WP:GAN. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)18:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Well so much for that . . . It failed. That was impressive how thorough it was reviewed in one day. Well, I'll try to fix the problems the guy had but I can't put as much time in for a while (private reading deadlines to meet). It might not have made Good Article but I definitely learned a lot about Wikipedia editing from it. Thanks again for the help. --Polsky215 (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
new article for PROMIS - previously deleted by ItsZippy
I would like you to take in consideration this article that seems deleted by you in a previous version.
No violation is meant and I would like to take your consideration before creating any discussion.
Thanks
Extended content
PROMIS® means Process Oriented integrated quality Management Internet Services for SMEs, a project funded by the European Commission whose first article has been presented at the e2000 Conference in Madrid (18.20.10.2000)[1] and published in E-business - Key Issues Applications Technologies[2].
History
The origin of the word PROMIS comes from "Process Oriented Management Information System".
This is a generic concept which is defined in the Dictionary of Acronyms and Technical Abbreviations for IT[3], Industrial, and Scientific Applications.
PROMIS® was to develop by PROMIS@Service Sarl a software-as-a-service solution, which allows European SMEs access to information essential and to comply with customer requirements in the international market regarding environmental protection, health, safety, quality and other regulations and standards.
The rationale behind PROMIS® is to support Small and Medium Enterprises in overcoming the requirements to operate effectively and safely their ongoing business.
External links
[1] Europe2020 Digital Agenda (accessed Jun 15, 2007)
History
The origin of the word PROMIS comes from "Process Oriented Management Information System".
This is a generic concept which is defined in the Dictionary of Acronyms and Technical Abbreviations for IT[4], Industrial, and Scientific Applications.
PROMIS® was to develop by PROMIS@Service Sarl a software-as-a-service solution, which allows European SMEs access to information essential and to comply with customer requirements in the international market regarding environmental protection, health, safety, quality and other regulations and standards.
The rationale behind PROMIS® is to support Small and Medium Enterprises in overcoming the requirements to operate effectively and safely their ongoing business.
Hello Zippy. Firstly, thanks for declining the request to have me blocked but I must be honest, I was alarmed to discover that you deemed my edits in violation of the policy and I was only saved by a calming of activity and the passing of a 24-hour period. Your comments make sense and you demonstrate a very mature approach for someone your age who has been made an admin. You must have been 11 when I first edited!! That doesn't matter, I just wish to explain something to you so that you realise this if passing future judgement. Zjarri's fifth example was a true case of reverting because it was not until my following edit that I straightened it; the other four were more justified (I have since realised the pathetic error of mine in his first example but since writing this, I have rectified every part of it and struck out my now invalid points in the discussion, you'll see when you log back). The rule implies blatant vandalism but the longer you stay here the sooner you'll realise that non-constructive editing takes many forms and can even be contrived to hoodwink anybody other than those versed in the pronominal topic. A recent-change patroller is not likely to revert an editor who removes a single sentence, rearranges a list, amends a statistic or extends the article with a single statement. Only when an editor closer to home logs in can he identify the contribution as vandalism. Categories of vandalism in reality form a continuum, at one end it is sneaky and at the other end it is blatant, but essentially, sneaky vandalism is not one iota more constructive than blatant vandalism. No BOT service detects the introduction of factually incorrect material the same way it can immediately revert page blanking, but the automated summary tags are certainly improving in that they now alert patrollers of height or weight changes, BLP issues, repeated characters and other such phenomena. So this brings our IP friend into the spotlight, how was this chapter able to happen? Simple, I had the fortune of being online when he made his first non-constructive edit; subsequently he too was able to restore his own edits because he was also logged in. The fact was that he was blanking information and the Warn/Notify caption even has a four-stage template created precisely for such actions, so it not as if I merely accused him of vandalism! Be that as it may, it has been mentioned enough times tonight that it was already dealt with by an experienced admin. Now no editor earns the block for making edits fit for purpose with the exception of one who is defying a topic ban. Not the case here, therefore it would have been folly to leave this IP's edits intact if he is suddenly unable to edit precisely for having made those contributions. Furthermore, because the issue was blanking, if I hadn't restored the deleted information, a few hours later another editor would have done! I do not police the whole spectrum of statistic blanking! Even now as we speak, editors are correcting these malicious edits, but as I said, unsuspecting patrollers will not immediately notice the disruptive nature of these minor "innocent appearance" contributions. Sometimes they do however, and the penchant for historical accuracy over POV-fuelled resentment for old entities invariably comes into effect for all encyclopaedic reasons. Please bare these things in mind when making decisions. If you don't, opportunist IPs watching this episode will turn cartwheels by running amok, causing "harmless looking havock", and have good-faith neutral editors such as I either blocked for correcting details not immediately noticeable as non-constructive to onlooking admins, or they will strike a fourth time, get themselves blocked (hardly matters to IPs who log back in with new identity), and have the page frozen in its impoverished format with the other editor powerless to remedy the article because of the threat that he too may be blocked. Do you see my point on this Zippy? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Evlekis, I've looked through the five reverts recorded on the report and none of them were reverting blatant vandalism. You claim that some of it was sneaky vandalism - that may or may not be so, but is irrelevant. You are exempted from 3RR if you are reverting blatant vandalism; you admitted yourself that what you were reverting was not blatantly vandalism (and it looks more like a content dispute anywya, but that's beside the point). I can understand your frustration, but edit warring is not the way to resolve this issue. If you believe that an IP is making unconstructive, it is best to start a dialogue with them and try to discuss the issue; if they do not respond, there are adequate steps to follow at WP:DE. You were in breach of 3RR and would have been blocked had an admin read the report earlier. I suggest you drop this issue now and continue editing. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)15:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It may come as a surprise to you but only today (Friday 6 July 2012) did I encounter the list of exceptions to revert restrictions. In technical terms you are right, I was horrified to discover that a user can earn the ban by making the most harmless of edits if doing so cancels the contribution of another when the same editor has reverted three times on the same article inside the past 24 hours. I'm just glad that some admins (like you) take a warmer approach and do not pull rank just for the sake of it. The issue is dropped and WP:DE it shall be when editors do not respond but plough on regardless with their edits. Something else I didn't know. Sounds crazy I know but I only come on here to read, and edit where I see an amendment is needed; I read very little into project pages but prior to the past day, I never really needed to. My years as an editor have not been dominated by conflict, it has just cropped up here and there. Not to worry, today has been an experience and I'll know better for future. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Since you are closing as no consensus, would you consider summarising the strength of the policy based arguments given for either keeping or deleting the article? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Stuart, I'd be more than happy to do that. I think that the main contention that needed resolving was whether this person beyond the one event of supporting Elton John. There was not consensus regarding whether the other coverage of her is significant enough to merit inclusion (I closed rather than relisting because it seemed that little additional discussion had taken place since the last two relists). I think that the sources provided might be just enough to justify keeping the article; however, it was not obvious enough, nor the discussion extensive enough, for me to close as keep. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)13:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Editnotice
Hey - I'm configuring the new Enroll page (per discussion on the the CVUA talk), but I'm trying to create an editnotice and it appears that only admins can do that for the WP namespace - mind if I pester you? :) -- Here's a link to the Enroll page draft: User:Theopolisme/CVUAEnroll, and here's a link to my proposed editnotice: User:Theopolisme/CVUAEnroll/Editnotice .... I'd like to add that editnotice to the CVUAEnroll (not the real one, just my draft - migrate after approval) page - can you help? Thanks a bunch! Theopolisme TALK16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC) (please TB)
I'd be happy to, but I'd need to see consensus for the change first. Can you either show me where the discussion is or, if there hasn't been one, start one? Thanks. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)16:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes - BUT the problem is I am trying to create an editnotice stored at User:Theopolisme/CVUAEnroll/Editnotice - however, if you try to edit this page, I get an error that it is an "unsupported edit notice location" or something like that - the WP:editnotice page states that editnotices in userspace have to be in User:XX/editnotice or User talk:XX/editnotice - nowhere else. I'm asking you, as an admin, to make an editnotice located here, as I don't want this notice popping up whenever someone edits my talk. Make sense? Sorry, and thanks! Theopolisme TALK16:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the talk page. You've been around here for longer than I have and are much more experienced than me. If you want, I'll remove the extra section. It also benefits me that way I don't have to update it . Best, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC).
Hi! I signed up to be an adopter yesterday and I see that you are also on the list. What is the procedure for getting new adoptees? Also, do you have any? Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC).
Hmm, I'm not entirely sure. The adoption programme seems to be a bit slow - some users proactively look for new users to adopt; I tend just to wait for the occasional request. I don't think that there's a process, but being part of it shows that you are available. I don't have any official adoptees at the moment, but I don't really have an adoption process (I may remove myself until I work out exactly what I want to offer). I'm not sure I'm the most helpful person to ask - sorry. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Primarily to review what I am saying about the edits - I would appreciate a second opnion - I might have missed something, and if so I'll just apologise and we can forget it. But if not perhaps there is something that the academy can do to help. I would really hate to see this escalate.
Thanks for noticing this and dealing so well with the user in question, Mcewan. As Electriccatfish says, they have realised their mistakes and reverted the edits, so I don't think any further action is needed. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)14:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
That user was blocked. I have no problem with someone putting a block template on a user's page when the blocking admin forgot (the block was made about 10 hours earlier). ItsZippy(talk • contributions)14:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Erm, largely unnecessary, actually. There's no need to completely change how an article references information, and we generally use whatever method was first used on the page. I've restored the references to as they were, hope you don't mind. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)16:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't mind at all. However, it is easier to have them so they easily link to the Bibliography of the article, which is why I like to use {{harv}} or {{harvnb}}. ⇒TAP16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand, I just find having all the references linked looks a bit cluttered (it's also helpful to keep the code simpler - for myself and for new users who aren't as well acquainted with Wikipedia). I don't mind using it when it's already there, but I prefer not to add it to articles. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)16:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Your block of User:Lsufalcon
I was a little surprised to see that User:Lsufalcon was blocked without warning for his 3RR violation, but not the other edit warrior, User:Scientiom ([3], [4], [5], [6]). The "warning" linked from AN3 discussion was actually just the notification of the noticeboard discussion. Would you be willing to please review? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there VQuakr, I'd be happy to review and explain. The reason I blocked Lsufalcon and not Scientiom was that only Lsufalcon had violated 3RR at the time. I blocked Lsufalcon at 15:20 UTC and Scientiom made his fourth revert at 15:36. I appreciate that Lsufalcon had not been warned; however, there is no requirement that a user receive a warning before they are blocked for edit warring (though, in some cases, it is good practice). Often I will be more lenient with newer, less experienced editors and may not block them for a first offence; however, Lsufalcon's contributions show a sole focus on the dispute at Homosexuals Anonymous, which is why I felt that a block was an appropriate course of action. Scientiom certainly acted inappropriately by making the fourth revert; however, I believe he had good intentions (and, in any case, blocking him now would just be a punishment, rather than a prevention of edit warring). I will, however, speak to Scientiom in regards to this matter. Lsufalcon's block will expire in about an hour; hopefully he will be able to continue editing constructively, but I will be watching the article to prevent an edit war breaking out again. I hope that is all ok - feel free to ask if you have any further questions. Thanks. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)14:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I would've thought that after Scientiom saw Lsufalcon get blocked for edit warring over quote marks, and then after getting warned by yourself for 4RR[7] for adding quote marks--that he would've considered himself lucky and refrained from further disruption. Well I thought wrong. Here is Scientiom edit warring again to add quote marks [8]. – Lionel(talk)09:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
What an outright lie - that material is entirely separate from the previous issue, and that is the *first* time I reverted in regard to that material. Also, per policy material should not be removed when a discussion about it is ongoing - the stable version is to be kept. --Scientiom (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I did not lie. I exposed a pattern of disruption regarding quotation marks. I never said your most recent revert was connected to the other incident. If you believe that you are justified in edit warring to maintain a so-called "stable version", then I see a long block log in your future.– Lionel(talk)18:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
User: ItsZippy Said:
"Often I will be more lenient with newer, less experienced editors and may not block them for a first offence; however, Lsufalcon's contributions show a sole focus on the dispute at Homosexuals Anonymous, which is why I felt that a block was an appropriate course of action"
I have edited and fixed many articles since 2007- this is not my first rodeo. This is the first time I've created a username. After all my contributions to Wiki I've never seen in the history of edit warring an admin block one user for edit warring and not the other. This is he first time I've been blatantly discriminated against for holding a certain stance in an article (which ironically is neutral, trying to work with the Wiki Rules and fix scare quotes)
And then User: ItsZippy says this:
"Scientiom certainly acted inappropriately by making the fourth revert; however, I believe he had good intentions (and, in any case, blocking him now would just be a punishment, rather than a prevention of edit warring).
Now the User:ItsZippy is taking sides. Scientiom not only committed the 3RR but he committed a fourth edit!! And he did it to spite me. And you allowed it! Admit it. You agree with Scientiom's edit and YOU prefer his edit over mine. There is bias here. This is no longer about breaking the 3RR. This is no longer about my edit of removing scare quotes of the HA article. This is about you taking sides with Scientiom and blocking me out of your own personal interest. This action, if unjustly corrected, will result in consequences of your own administration rights, ItsZippy. Scientiom should be blocked IMMEDIATELY for his actions, no exceptions. This about Wiki-editor equality, and you chose the wrong side.
Lsufalcon, I know you feel an injustice was visited upon you. But don't let it get the best of you. ItsZippy is an experienced and respected admin. His reasoning for not blocking Scientiom is reasonable. We have to assume good faith. Every single editor on Wikipedia knows if I thought otherwise I would not hesitate to let Zippy have it. When you edit the most contentious articles on WP you're gonna get beat up. Most of these editors who edit homosexual-religion-politics articles are insane sado-masochists. And I'm including myself, lol. Just remember 2 things: (1) Shit happens. Get a napkin, and wipe yourself off (2) The wheels of wikijustice turn slowly--but when wikijustice is served it's a bitch. Based on Scientiom's editing pattern it may be sooner than later. – Lionel(talk)23:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I find wiki-drama really boring, so I'll try to keep this brief. Lsufalcon, when I blocked you, you had violated 3RR and Scientiom had not; whatever you think, I acted in accordance with the guidelines and policies regarding edit warring and blocking. To block Scientiom, who had restrained himself from violating 3RR, would have been wrong. When Scientiom did make a fourth revert, the situation was different. When I blocked you, it was to prevent the edit war from escalating. When Scientiom made his fourth revert, the edit war had stopped, so to block him would have been nothing more than punishment. As blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, it would not have been reasonable to block Scientiom. When I said that I believed he had good intentions, I was assuming good faith and was not making any stance on the issue. I was simply meant that I was happy to accept that Scientiom believed he was improving the encyclopedia and not editing maliciously - that has nothing to do with the actual issue at hand. I have absolutely no opinion on the issue and have no desire to side with anyone at all. That is all I have to say on the matter. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)17:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
CVUA student tasks
Hi Zippy, I was looking over the academy page you have for Anderson9990 (User:ItsZippy/CVUA/Anderson9990) and was wondering if I could steal it, at least for my first student, until I get a "better" idea of how instructing will work for me. Do you mind? Also you wouldn't happen to have all of the components somewhere that I could have a look at (primarily the final test)? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, you can steal it. I would love to give you everything I have, but I have no more - I've been making it up as I go along with my first few students. Anderson's test is in four days, so I'll need to write that soon; I'll send it to you when I've done it. If you need anything else, just let me know. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)14:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay thanks, if I end up making any (mainly tool specific) I'll let you know. What are you thinking for the test - is this vandalism or AGF, which warning template would you use, when is it not appropriate to use AIV - that sort of thing? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I think so. It'll be a range of theory based questions and practical tasks - probably similar to the tasks I've set throughout the course, but more difficult and more of them. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)15:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey ItsZippy. You answered a question regarding 3RR for me a while back and I forgot to respond. I just wanted to drop by and say thanks for your time :). Sædontalk07:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, that will probably have been a typo - I often type horus instead of hours; I usually see it and fix it, but sometimes I miss it. Where did I do that? ItsZippy(talk • contributions)16:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey man. I'm in a bit of a weird place, editing-wise right now, and I guess, more than anything I just need someone to talk to. As an experienced editor, as a peer, and as a colleague, I guess I'm coming to you for advice. I feel generally unchallenged on the Encyclopedia, and I'm really without direction. I still love this project, and love helping out where I can, but my main areas of focus (WP:CVU, WP:WPWPA and WP:MFD)...I'm just, how to put it...The act of deciding my opinion on an MFD or a new Wikipedia Award has become so rote. I've often thought of myself as a Traffic Cop, when it came to policies, that someone else would make RFCs if they didn't like a policy, but that my job was simply to apply my interpretation of that policy. But I've come to a point where I know the policies so well that there's no challenge in trying to tackle the intricate nature of them anymore.
So I guess what I'm really looking for is guidance. What should I do, in this situation? I want to help, I just don't know the avenue or project that could better use my skills, and would actually leave me feeling wanted. Any guidance you can give me would be great. Achowat (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Achowat, thanks for your message; I'm touched that you'd come to me for advice, and I really hope that you can find what you're looking for. I'm not deeply familiar with your history, but is there anything you did in the past which you stopped doing? Perhaps areas of content creation that got lost amongst the other administrative areas of Wikipedia which you could work on again. I've sometimes found that ignoring all of the quasi-political, bureaucratic areas of Wikipedia and focusing on what I find interesting and being able to be more creative can be very refreshing. Or, it might be that you're just going through a period of disillusionment or tiredness; sometimes, finding things outside of Wikipedia can be really helpful. Perhaps take a break for a week (or longer, depending how you feel); you might find yourself much more motivated when you return. I hope that is some help to you; I'd hate to see such a great editor as yourself feeling directionless. Don't worry about feeling wanted - you are wanted (and the messages you received on standing down as CVUA coordinator are a testament to that). Let me know how you feel and what you decide to do, and remember that I'm always open to talk to if you need it. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)21:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. I've never been a content guy. I've started no articles and don't really have the skillset for Encyclopedic writing. I got a DYK credit almost by accident, and aside from that, all my Article-space work has been counter-vandalism, maintenance (of Soccer team/season/competition pages) or entirely gnomish. I've flirted with the idea of an RFA in the past, but I feel my utter lack of Content work would be dooming. I don't know, maybe I'll take a week or two off after the new Coordinator is chosen. Maybe I'll move on to Wikiquote or buy a camera and work with the Commons. I don't know. You're a good man, Zip. A good man. Achowat (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply - there's been somewhat of a rush at my talk page recently, and older threads are being drowned out. Fair enough - not everyone writes content. If you've enjoyed gnomish stuff and anti-vandalism, you could get back to some of that, without the politics (at least for a while, if you need some time). I think an RfA would be difficult if you've not contributed much content (which is a shame, because I think you'd make a decent admin). Sometimes I find setting myself tasks to do helpful (I am personally more motivated when I have an end goal) - might that work for you? But only do what you enjoy doing; if you need a break, or need to do something entirely different, then that might be the best idea. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)11:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Achowat offered to nominate me as the coordinator, and I myself would like to nominate you as a Coordinator. Do you accept? If you want, I'll just run for deputy. Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC).
Is it really necessary to go through a mini-RFA just to elect a coordinator. Keep in mind that the role of coordinator has yet to be specified. -CTStalk12:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
After a lot of consideration, I've decided I won't run for CVUA coordinator. I feel that the range of other things I do at Wikipedia would mean I could not dedicate enough time to do the job or Academy decent service. Best of luck to whoever gets the post. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)10:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, fine. It's great having you as an instructor here. All of your students greatly appreciate it. I'm very excited for my RfA in January. Regards, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC).
Adoption Request
hi i am sue and want you to adopt me. I am a Music Management consultant and creating a Rocky Nti article for an upcoming singer songwriter in the UK and will need some help. Thanks how do i keep an eye on my wiki account...do i have to leave the page on? thanks --Rockynti (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, Rockynti. I'm afraid I'm not actively adopting people at the moment (I know my name is on the list - I'll take it off) due to other commitments. Perhaps you could find someone else to adopt you - Demiurge1000 maybe? ItsZippy(talk • contributions)14:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Zippy, is it still edit warring when I'm reverting edits of a vandal? This user in question is User:Pé de Chinelo who has been harassing me through various IPs for a few years now. If I'm in the wrong no problem, just want to get confirmation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Zippy, another use weighed in on the Pe de Chinelo situation. Maybe you'd take a peak at it to see what I've been referring too. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, I believe I am exempt from the WP:3RR per the rule stating "Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts.". Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If they were the edits of a sockpuppet of a blocked/banned user, then you would be exempt, yes. I was not aware of the sockpuppeting issue, sorry for that. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)10:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you please restore Dying god to version as of 16:17, June 27, 2012 by 75.51.160.117, as this was the last version before the edit warring began. This is according to WP:PREFER "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." I have tried to get them to respect WP:BRD and discuss the edits on the talk page, but have been unsuccessful. Thanks for your attention. Editor2020 (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Zippy I've chucked a link in to my version which I mainly adapted from yours, might save you some time if you copy and paste the relevant bits out (I've added some of my own (and inspired by Electric's) in as well). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem as such. A user asked a question on my talk page (it involves Talk:2014 Governor Race in Florida Independent Candidates#this page) and I'm pretty tired (just looking at the screen is difficult) so I don't really want to get involved (and have to you know make decisions) right now - but it doesn't look like something which can wait. Plus I also think I may involve deleted pages. So would you be able to have a look for me, I trust you and I know we "think" and do things pretty much the same way. Sorry about the awful spelling etc (but as I said pretty tired). I understand if you'd rather not get involved. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 16:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello ItsZippy, Callanecc has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 02:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm not really interested in watching the video (I understand the content from your summary). In terms of the editor, I am happy to monitor the editor for any disruption; if it just an idle threat, there's no need to do anything. Thanks for letting me know. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The editor has apparently decided to take the battle to YouTube slander, since he got no sympathy here from you or anybody else. I just thought you should know, in case the attack (14 minutes in length!) turns out to have legs. --Orange Mike | Talk20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Cruel Summer G.O.O.D
Hello. I was wondering if you deleted Kanye West's album from Wikipedia, with his single debut "Mercy"? If so, provide reasoning and how you have the authority to do so. If you are indeed 18 years of age, I would like to discover how you were able to delete an entire web page from wikipedia. I knew that wikipedia had pages that could be edited, but I did not know that entire pages could be deleted. Please reply as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.157.234 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Theo is right; I am an administrator which means that the community has given me a few extra buttons to help keep Wikipedia running smoothly. However, I cannot just delete pages I do not like, and must follow proper procedure. I deleted Cruel Summer (GOOD Music album) because of this deletion discussion, where the consensus was that it is too soon for there to be any encyclopedic content about the album (reading this and this might help). I hope that answers you questions; let me know if you need anything else. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)17:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that this article (Cruel Summer (GOOD Music album)) has been recreated (again), even though the release date has moved back (again) and the references are all still either press releases or other sources related to the subject of the article. Can you take a look and see if WP:CSD G4 applies? I have also left a note on the article talk page. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Evlekis
Evlekis, to whom you gave a final warning (3RR) last week is again involved on ANI[9]. Last week Majuru reported Evlekis, who got an ARBMAC warning and now both are involved in disputes on Lorenc Antoni (both 3 reverts) etc. As Evlekis openly admitted he resumed edit-warring just a few hours after the of the 24-hour slot, so I had to report him [10]--— ZjarriRrethues —talk16:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your protection of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, I'm concerned that a 12-hour full protection probably won't suffice to remedy the problem, and that edit warring will most likely pick up where it left off as soon as the protection expires (in a little over five hours from now). If you haven't already done so, you might want to take a look at the "Sheriff Arpaio" section of the article's talk page, as well as the report I posted last night on the fringe theories noticeboard. I'm not trying to push for any particular resolution — just making sure it's understood that there is a deep and enduring issue involved here that (IMO) isn't going to go away soon and is probably in need of some significant intervention. Apologies for being redundant in case you were already aware of this and/or were already planning to keep an eye on the article after it becomes generally editable again. — Richwales02:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your message, Richwales. I had planned to monitor the article once the protection had expired, but thanks for bringing the underlying issue to my attention. So far, edit warring has not resumed (but it has inly been unprotected for 6 hours); if it starts again, I am willing to protect for a longer period (or happy for another admin to if I am not around). I'll keep a close eye on the article. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)11:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on the article, but I'd suggest some sort of dispute resolution to deal with the content issue. Could you show me where the 3RR violation is please (the diffs of the four reverts, and the version being reverted to)? ItsZippy(talk • contributions)14:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
One of the reverts was 2 days prior not 24 hours, so not 3RR, 3 reverts (here is the original insert of the tag by the editor here [12]), [13][14].[15] (corresponds to a revert of a bold edit I made).IRWolfie- (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you specify on the request that many other bio articles have been the subject of the same type of dispute just to generalize it in order to avoid a resolution that could be interpreted by future users as a decision that is related only to the 3 linked articles (although the title of the dispute is concise)? I'd do it myself but I don't know if I should be editing those sections since I'm not the filing party.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk17:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Zip! Although I mainly do anti-vandalism and new page patrolling work around here, I am also getting involved in the content creation aspect of Wikipedia for my RfA. I have been working on creating an article about the Savannah-Chatham Metro Police Department that actually stemmed from a content dispute 5 months ago with Mason.Jones. I think that I could take it to the GA status, but I would like to know if it gets any recognition, like having my article on the main page or something. Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
Is it all right to use talk pages such as with this[16]? Obviously it is my intention to get certain messages across but I could just as easily do that on our own talk pages. Also, if the user whom I addressed (User:Aigest) would like to join the mediation debate, I am happy for him to do so. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with you using talk pages of those article, provided you keep it civil and constructive, and avoid actually editing the content of the articles. If there are more editors who might benefit from being part of the mediation, they are welcome to add themselves to the case. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)14:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Adoption
Would You be willing to adopt me? My name is Kiki I have used this site a lot and would now like to help with editing.Kiki-kk (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey I was wondering will you please adopt me. I am 14 and need some help I was recomended to do this program.18:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiki-kk (talk • contribs)
Thanks for the sppppeeeeeeeedy delete. I uploaded that fully thinking I was going to put it into my userpage as an example of odd photography, but then decided otherwise. Theopolisme TALK15:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Zippy would mind having a look at what's going on with Judge Guthrie and the message I left at User talk:86.164.69.129 (after their last re-additon). I don't want to do any further given the 3RR issue, plus they aren't listening to me and when you see the edit history I think you'll agree it's a bad case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Zippy. Could you please unprotect this page, remove the vandalism, then protect it again. We have a consensus on the talk page that the character is white (and I don't really know why this is such a big deal anyway), and we have proof of and agreement on the inconsistency. However, the other party involved has now resorted to insults and lies, and has ignored the Talk page altogether. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.199.218 (talk • contribs)
Hello there. I have recently made a proposal to change the way that disputes are handled and filed at DRN. As you've listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN, I would appreciate your input. You can find the thread here. Regards, StevenZhangGet involved in DR!02:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Wrong version of the article protected
with reference to this you have protected a worng version of the article having unsourced controversial claims, none of the sources mentioned there support the controversial synthesis that POV editors have added in the article and now the page will be on the Main page with this due to the protection of wrong version. Please at least have a cursory look on the sources, before page protection, thanks--DBigXray13:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This edit just before your protection contains the re-addition of the unsourced claims. you can take a look on the sources yourself to decide about it. I will suggest reverting to last version by Mdan, thanks--DBigXray13:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless there are BLP or copyright problems, I don't think it would be appropriate to change the version of the article protected. The content dispute seems to be about the sources in question, so to revert would be to support one side over the other (I protected the page as it was when I came to protect, not favouring one side or the other). ItsZippy(talk • contributions)13:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, seeing you didn't agree with my CSD, I thought about it and wound up tagging it for no sources, and proposed merge into Sex Toy. Hope that's better! David_FLXD(Talk)19:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
A merge might be a good idea. I declined the CSD tag because it wasn't unambiguously promotional; it would need to be very obviously advertising something and have no encyclopedic content to qualify for speedy deletion. Be sure to start a discussion at Talk:Sex toy if you want to merge the articles. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you that it's 6 months, but someone who wants to be an instructor was blocked for a few minutes in June because Todd1st thought that he broke the 3RR, when he really didn't. Do you agree with me that this is acceptable? Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC).
If a block is made in error, or if it's retracted by the blocking admin, I would not consider it a mark on a clean block log (it is clean in spirit, if not in technicality). If there are any ambiguities (such as the ones you mention), they can probably be addressed as they arise. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)11:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd take edit warring blockd quite seriously. Edit warring shows that someone is unable to edit collaboratively and work with other people, and shows a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works; working as part of a team is vital for CVUA instructors. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)11:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So, big news this week - on Tuesday, we ramped up to 5 percent of articles :). There's been a lot more feedback (pardon the pun) as I'm sure you've noticed, and to try and help we've scheduled a large number of office hours sessions, including one this evening at 22:00 UTC in the #wikimedia-officeconnect channel, and another at 01:00 UTC for the aussies amongst us :). I hope to see some of you there - if any of you can't make it but have any questions, I'm always happy to help.
Ok, that's fine. There are still a few more questions to complete on your final exam, and you need to look at the comment I left on section one. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)11:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Redbox
Really? The anonymous editor(s) has replaced the highly personal, acrimonious but largely anecdotal and poorly sourced content eight times, while refusing to discuss the edits on the talk page. At least two editors have left comments in the EDIT COMMENT history to encourage the editor to discuss the content -- to no avail. So their refusal to discuss the matter is the grounds for not protecting the article? Please review this again, examining the edit comments and the nature of the content. 842U (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, last month you revoked the above users' autopatrolled rights (if you remember). Please could you clarify the reason for this as this topic has been brought up again at WP:PERM as they are reuqesting the reviewer right, I know they're unrelated, but another user is asking why. --Chip12345619:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, Chip. I granted TBrandley autopatrolled rights last month but, after a user questioned it, I removed it, realising that I should not have given them in the first place. The reason was that the user had created a number of poorly sources articles which meant that being autopatrolled would be inappropriate. A full discussion is here. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)19:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, you may want to post it at PERMS under the reviewer section as Riley Huntley is questioning this action. If not, I'll post it on your behalf. :)--Chip12345619:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
If you could post on my behalf (and link here), that'd be great (I'm slightly busy at the moment). I won't comment on the suitability of TBrandley to have the reviewer right at the moment though, as I would need to examine the user's recent contributions. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)19:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Zippy. I was working on my latest CVUA task and ran across a potentially worrisome username that has just been created today. Username policy is not (yet) something I'm particularly familiar with, so before went to an official group (like WP:RFCN, for example), I thought maybe I could get an informal sanity check from a colleague. My main concern is how it looks when an article on an Iranian military unit (Takavar) is being edited by "US-Military-Officials". What say you? -- Bgpauluswords & deeds21:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me; that's a tricky one! I had a look at their contributions and they seem to be editing in good faith, so I have left a message on their talk page explaining the problems and telling them how to request a rename. Hopefully, they'll respond and the matter can be dealt with; if not, a block would be the only possible option. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)21:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Response to your message
Hello there, I am responding to your message. Thank you for your concern, however, I am, in fact, a member of the U.S. Armed Forces. I've served in the U.S. Military for longer than seven years with more than four combat tours. My account name is referred in plural in order to represent all U.S. Military officials, respectfully, to [legally] provide publicized, accurate information to the best of my knowledge to those who seek further education in relation to global military information.
If there is still an error in regards to my obedience to the Wikipedia Terms of Use, please feel free to inform me and I will take the best course of action to resolve it!
Yes, after the words Bloody Christmas, in parenthesis, please replace external link (Tr: WP) to internal (Tr: WP) link. Smt I could not achieve... --E4024 (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
First of all, thank you very much. This evening I only did one simple thing: Entered an existing article (Greek-Turkish relations). There, there was reference to the "Bloody Christmas (in Turkish: Kanli Noel)". I had never visited this article. I found it while searching for sources for the proposed Bloody Christmas article. And I simply added the En: WP link (for the article that I hope will be created) and asked your help on adding the Tr: WP link, as the original Turkish name of the event (like Cristallnacht) was already there. Now, ehem, how to answer your question. I am here for almost 3 months but only yesterday a very kind admin taught me how to send a Wikilove msg. (Sure I will send you one.) This was the answer to the question at the header. For the second one, I must pass some time here or study. :-) This is a very complicated place, see you forgot to sign your last comment? :-) Give me time and I will be a good contributor. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still not sure what you are asking me to do. If you want to create an article about this specific Bloody Christmas, you are free to do so - just make sure you have enough sources to demonstrate that it is notable. If you want to edit an article, you can do that, except for Bloody Christmas which is protected until tomorrow. If you want me to make a change on Bloody Christmas, you will need to show that there is consensus to make the change before I can make it. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)23:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Again: I am not asking anything about the Bloody Christmas "proposed" page. I am telling you that when I was looking for sources to that end, I saw that the concept is already in WP. Where? At the Greek-Turkish relations article. What did I do? Create a Vikilink to my proposed page on disambiguation regarding Bl. Chr. Is it OK until now? What I was not able to do (and therefore ask your help) is this: In the Greek-Turkish relations article after the words Bloody Christmas there is a parenthesis with the Turkish name of the said campaign: "KANLI NOEL". Here I want to add the Turkish WP article (on Bloody Christmas) as an inner link. For some reason I could not do it. So I did it as an external link. I hope you can fix that for me. We are speaking about an article (Gr-Tr relations) without disputes, yet. Hello? :-) Humour apart, I am very untalented in technical things. Would be happy if you can help. Here is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek-Turkish_relations#Cyprus_crisis.2C_Turkish_invasion_and_the_collapse_of_the_Greek_military_junta Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I managed to do it all by myself, although it took me several (more than that :-) attempts. Thank you for letting me learn how to catch a fish. Please see also the Talk Page of the Disambiguation thing I added, here. Now -after adding reliable sources- I wonder how some users will continue to pretend as if they heard the concept for the first time... --E4024 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Zippy. Could you help me announce the contents of this Discussion Page somewhere in Wiki (Village Pump?) so all the interested users can join the discussion and contribute to the proposed article? The idea is making a collective effort. As some users have labeled me with something I am not (nationalist) I prefer that the announcement to be made by an Admin, respected by the community. I only want to gather as much opinion and contribution as possible... Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The best way to do that would be a request for comment (RfC). To do that, just add {{rfc|hist}} above the discussion that you want wider community discussion on. It doesn't matter who adds the RfC, as people should discuss the issues and not consider who you personally are. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)19:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey, the New Labour article is great, but I have one problem... In the lead it says "The political philosophy of New Labour was influenced by the party's development of the Thid Way, which attempted to provide an alternative to capitalism and socialism", which doesn't make sense seeing in the Economics section it is stated that "New Labour accepted the economic efficiency of free markets and believed that they could be detached from capitalism to achieve the aims of socialism, while maintaining the efficiency of capitalism". How could New Labour seek trying to find an alternative to socialism, while at the same time seeking to build a socialist society alongside a capitalist one??? Even if their goal seems to me to be impossible, it doesn't make sense either that they want to have an alternative to socialism, while at the same time try to retain socialism... Another thing which the article lacks is New Labour's definition of what socialism was; it changed, drastically, from pre-Blair times to something else. While some of it new tenets are mentioned; it should be made clear that New Labour defined socialism as a different way, and never officially abandoned socialism (even if many believes so; me included)... Again, great article. Best of luck with you're future work. --TIAYN (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Why the protection at User:Fasttimes68? There's no reason for it - was only a single instance of someone other than him editing the page, which was quickly reverted. I'm not seeing the justification under WP:PP, which states "User pages and subpages are sometimes protected at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism/disruption or other good reason to do so." -- there's no real reason here for protection, let alone indefinite. Additionally the portion on semi-protection doesn't seem to justify this either: "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. " I don't think it really applies. What's even more odd is that I had just declined his request and then you did the protection. Any reasoning? ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Just saw your response on my talk, I figured it was simultaneous. I don't really care, but it really shouldn't be an indefinite protection (personally I don't think it should be protected at all but if it is at least for a short period it doesn't really hurt.) ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right. I tend to be more willing to protect user pages (as opposed to talk) because there is no harm (it doesn't hinder communication, as protection a talk page would). Having said that, I have no issue with you unprotected the page. As I said at your talk page, I'll leave the decision in your hands - feel free to leave it or unprotect it as you see fit. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)18:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
To replace your energy for your undercover activities to help me through the Wikipedia labyrinth. Thank you very much... E4024 (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
sorry about the "nom" .. I didn't realize you two were acquainted as well as you obviously are, or that you were considering doing it yourself - otherwise I'd have left it for you. Chedzilla (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Zip! I often see cases of WP: SNOW at AFD, where there are about a dozen keep votes and no delete votes. Can these be speedy kept? They don't meet WP: SK, but there is usually no reason to keep these AFDs open as the keep votes keep piling on. What should be done? Thanks, ElectricCatfish22:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC).
I think I fall on the conservative side regarding non-admin closures. I generally think that non-admins should only be closing obvious speedy keeps and unanimous keep discussions after 7 days; I'm less comfortable with non-admins making snow closures before the end of the discussion period (before I was an admin, I only closed debates that had finished with 100% keep). Having said that, there is nothing wrong with a non-admin making a snow closure, provided it is blatantly obviously a keep (more than 8ish, and with no dissent and at least one vote with a good rationale). Other people may be more lenient, but that's what I believe. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)17:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Zippy! I agree with you here. I only close withdrawn by nom, or either expired AFDs with only keep votes, or 1 or 2 delete votes that are questioned multiple times by other editors and their rationales are proved wrong. Also, I don't intend to work in AFDs after my RFA, I just want to get some experience there. I've made about 10 closures and 100 votes, with a consensus matching percent of 80%. Best, ElectricCatfish20:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC).
If you don't intend to work at AfD after your RfA, please don't just time getting experience just for your RfA. It's not helpful if people make NAC just for the sake of an RfA, and many people will oppose you if you've been doing things just for the sake of an RfA. When preparing for an RfA, the best advice I know is to carry on doing what you enjoy and to do it really well. If you never intend to close an RfA, don't bother spending ages there; do what you find interesting because that shows commitment to the project, rather than to becoming an admin. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)16:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
You mean I can stop working at AFD? I'm much better at anti-vandalism and new page patrolling and my AFD record is decent. When TParis gave me my review, he told me that people would oppose me if I don't have enough experience at AFD. I totally agree with you, but I've also done a few things here that were originally to gain trust, but I've really enjoyed, such as AFC and DRN. Best, ElectricCatfish17:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC).
Hey again all :). So, some big news, some small news, some good news, some bad news!
On the "big news" front; we've now deployed AFT5 on to 10 percent of articles, This is pretty awesome :). On the "bad news", however, it looks like we're having to stop at 10 percent until around September - there are scaling issues that make it dangerous to deploy wider. Happily, our awesome features engineering team is looking into them as we speak, and I'm optimistic that the issues will be resolved.
For both "small" and "good" news; we've got another office hours session. This one is tomorrow, at 22:00 UTC in #wikimedia-officeconnect - I appreciate it's a bit late for Europeans, but I wanted to juggle it so US east coasters could attend if they wanted :). Hope to see you all there!
Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-officeconnect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Hey Zippy! Hope all is going well! I just made a request over at the EdwardsBot page so we could send out a message to everyone who was on the previous member list for the Vandalism studies project, as we're trying to get that started again - however I just realized, hey, Zippy's an admin! Could you grant me access to that? Thanks! Theopolisme TALK19:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and no worries - we shall. Think we're going to include an opt-in message on the signup page, as we're asking folks who are still interested to re sign up. [excited shiver as returns to watching olympics] Theopolisme TALK15:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Done Dan653 (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Theopolisme TALK 15:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)