Jump to content

User talk:ItsZippy/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Deletion of Dog-gone Sauce

Its Zippy, You just deleted Dog-gone Sauce artice and it should have not been deleted. It was a "Start Class Article" and they should not be in any danger of being speedily deleted. The article was created throught the AFC process so it was approved by an Administrator and given the Start Class rating. The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. Please restore the article so it can be improved. Thanks The Hal Apeno (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi The Hal Apeno. When the quality scale says that "no Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted", it means that an article can only be classified as Start Class if there is no danger that it will be speedily deleted. To qualify as a Start Class article, it must satisfy core Wikipedia policies. This means that, if an article is speedily deleted, it should not have been a Start Class article in the first place (because any article which is speedily deleted cannot have met the criteria for being a Start Class article). I deleted the article because it was unambiguously promotional, meaning that it served to promote the product and idea, rather than neutrally inform people about it. If you want to create a Wikipedia entry for Dog-gone sauce, I suggest you start a userspace draft - that means you write your article in your own userspace, rather than in the main encyclopaedia, so that you can get it to a good standard before publishing it. This will also mean that you have more time and freedom to work on the article. You can create a userspace draft at User:The Hal Apeno/Dog-gone Sauce. I suggest that, if you do this, you ask me or another experienced user to review your article before publishing it - that way you can ensure that it meets the standards of Wikipedia and will be able to avoid disappointment. Also, I suggest you read WP:COI and WP:V before you start - this will help you check that the topic should have a Wikipedia article, and that you are the right person to write it. If you have any questions, please ask. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi ItsZippy, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of "No Start Class article should be in any danger of Speedy Deletion" and here is why. If you look at the Quality Classes, they're what an article is rated by an Admin so it makes that a statement and not a condition. Under your discription, any article could suddenly be deleted without discussion based upon one persons opinion. If you look at the classes and start at the bottom working up, you will see what I mean. If the Admin that approved my article would have thought it was as you discribe he would have classified it as Disambig and not published it. Instead he approved it and classified it as Start Class. I believe that the reason for that statement then is to protect an article from exactly what happened. The classification starts out saying "An Article that is developing...". If Start Class articles are continually deleted there is no chance to develop them and move up in class and into a substantial article. Also, since another Admin approved the article, I believe it is not intented for another Admin to delete it without discussion which is what "Speedy" means. That would infer that there are different interpretations of Wiki standards and I could go get Admins to back my position and you yours. If you review the Quality Class I think you will see my point and see that under the examples on the right the article Kashi (company) is close to Dog-gone Sauce. Please consider my POV and let the article have time to develop as I believe the class is intended instead. Thanks The Hal Apeno (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I just want to add one thing. I created the article through the Articles For Creation process which had it reviewed and a class given. Why would Wiki have this process if an article is going to be subject to Speedy Deletion after that. Thanks The Hal Apeno (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, thanks for your message. I think we're getting needlessly confused with discussion about article quality. When it comes to speedy deletion - which is what my deletion of the article was - admins are obliged to follow the criteria for speedy deletion, and nothing else. In this case, I applied criterion G11, which applies to pages that are "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". I felt that was the case with this article. If you disagree with my reading of the article, you are free to say that; talking about Start Class articles is not relevant. The quality scale is not official Wikipedia policy; the criteria for speedy deletion is. The speedy deletion criteria does not give any exemption to Start Class articles; this is the policy I applied.
While I will not restore this article to the mainspace, I am more than willing to userfy it for you. This will allow you to work in the article in your userspace before having it published. As I said, it will allow you to get the article reviewed before publishing. Would you like me to do this for you? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi ItsZippy, Yes, I would like your help very much. While I understand the speedy deletion rules may apply to the article I also think this statement in them should have been applied "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." I feel that it was approved by another Admin a very short time ago and it should have been looked at under this area too, "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved...". It's frustrating to work on something for over a month and it gets approved only to have it deleted without any discussion or attempt to improve it. It seems that there is not much effort put into improving articles as I've seen so many similar articles on food companies on wiki that I tried to follow. With all of that being said though, I am more than willing to admit that I need help with it. I want to learn how to write quality articles and would appreciate you userfying it because I want to make it a top class article rather than just another stub cluttering up space. I created it in my sandbox here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Hal_Apeno/sandbox unless it needs to be somewhere else. Thanks The Hal Apeno (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It's great that you want to improve the article - I'm pleased you're happy to work on it an get some feedback. Here is some very quick advice to get you started:
  • Part of the problem is that the article was too promotional when you published it before. The content we include in article should be something you'd expect to find in an encyclopaedia, not something you might see on promotional material. For example, listing all the varieties of the sauce is probably not important (especially when the references for those are the company's own website.
  • Similarly, while the stuff about the history and the cause probably are relevant, they are written in a way which sounds like an advert. For example, "The owner of Dog-gone Sauce is passionate about helping animals. The mission of the company is to end animal neglect, abuse, and cruelty." Though this might be true, it is written in an emotive and personal way - that's great for a promotional leaflet, but not so good for a Wikipedia article which is supposed to be neutral.
  • You could really do with finding some more sources. These should be neutral, reliable, and independent sources in order to establish notability - while citing the company's website will give you information about it, it will not establish that the company has made enough of an impact in the world to deserve an article on Wikipedia. If you can find some major news articles or editorials which pay significant attention to the sauce, these will be useful. If you can't find any of these, the article may not be appropriate for Wikipedia (have a look at WP:NOTE before you start).
  • It might be worth asking another editor to copyedit the article for you, once you're happy with it. This means that they'll go through it and check the style, grammar, etc. Having a neutral pair of eyes look at an article is always really helpful, and there are many people around who'll do that for you.
Best of luck with the article; if you need any help, please do ask me. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I got pinged about this discussion while I was busy over the weekend, but the current article no longer has the previous history, so I can't tell what improvements are in it, but I recall adding a few reliable sources such as this - unfortunately that's the only one I can find at present. I'm surprised at this, as I would generally not pass an article through AfC with just a minor news piece, so I'll have to assume I found others and added them to the article. I send AfC submissions to G11 myself, and in my opinion, a valid candidate has ZERO reliable sources, not even local news coverage, and is full of puffery - an example for this article would be something like "Dog-gone sauce is a revolutionary new taste sensation and the profits from this amazing new condiment will go to good causes. Everyone's finding out how wonderful it really is!!!". Please don't wantonly delete stuff without having at least a full discussion via AfD, you'll just annoy newbies. At least an article deleted via AfD because it does not have sufficient sources can be referred to - as it is, you've had to take a load of time out and justify your actions when you really didn't need to in the first place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie, thanks for your comment. I appreciate that you can't see the page's previous history (the page in The Hal Apeno's sandbox is very close to what it was when I deleted it). I deleted the article because I felt that it was blatantly promotional, to the extent that, in order not to be promotional, much of what is there needs to be removed, and anything else needs to be rewritten. The sources were not the reason I deleted it (I mentioned it above as part of general feedback, rather than a rationle for deletion). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
But that's only your personal opinion, and I disagree with it (and I suspect the WP:NEWT players might also disagree, if you asked them). Unless you are absolutely sure an AfD would almost certainly result in "Snow delete", you shouldn't CSD stuff. It's to save time. Most of the time, articles should not be unilaterally deleted on one or two people's opinions, but via consensus. PS: Just in case it hasn't come across, I think your dialogue here has actually been helpful and constructive, and it's been taking with the good faith by the article's creator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion, and I apologise if you think I acted beyond my remit in deleting the article. When it comes to speedy deletion, I always try to apply the criteria impartially and fairly. I still hold that the article did meet the speedy deletion crietia, but maybe you are right in that I could have been gentler in my application. Anyway, the page is currently userfied and The Hal Apeno looks willing to improve the article - this seems to be a good situation, even if we didn't arrive at it perfectly. I'm hoping we can move on from this discussion now and focus our attention on helping The Hal Apeno decide whether the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and, if it does, bring it up to a standard that it may can be published. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you were fine in your application - you acted in good faith and as a result the creator is busy trying to make a much better article. That's a good result. If only more discussions would like this we could speedy pages like this one next! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy and Richie333, I've rewritten the article substantially and reverted it to what I think is a better version of what Richie333 published. Please review it and tell me if it is acceptable User:The_Hal_Apeno/sandbox. I appreciate your help and would like you to restore it with this new version. Thanks The Hal Apeno (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a great start you've made - well done. I do think you could probably lose the section on the different varieties completely - it's not really that important for a full understanding, and looks a bit promotional. Also, you could improve the writing by making it sound less narrative. Things like "With experience in the supermarket industry and involvement in a hot sauce company...", "Jeff Schmidt had an idea...", "He first began with two sauces..." make it sound like you're telling a story, rather than writing an encyclopaedia article. This is where it might be useful to get an independent editor to go over the text for you to make it more neutral. Finally, I still think some more reliable sources are necessary; at present, I don't know whether there's enough for the article to survive a deletion discussion. A lot of the sources you have seem either unreliable or too connected to the subject of the article to give notability; see if you can find something from wider news coverage (also, I think you have the wrong link for the FOX4 source). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment and the input Its Zippy. These are articles I read before starting mine and are similar in content to what I wrote. I believe the flavors are relevant in my article and as you can see almost every one of these list flavors or varieties (after all they are about hot sauce so I think it’s expected). Some expound upon the flavor quite extensively like an advert, some have absolutely no notability and some are barely a stub.
This is the part that has been extremely frustrating to me and I apologize in advance if it seems disparaging. I spent about a month reading articles and looking at Wikipedia before I ventured into editing and feel that I have followed the other articles out there. I believe my article is more notable and much better written than 80% of the 10 articles I referenced. Some of them have been there for several years and after waiting over 3 weeks to be approved through the AFC process, mine didn’t last 2 weeks. As a newbie it seems that the goal of many editors and admins are just here for their own agenda whether it’s to push their view point, pretend to be a writer or satisfy their ego with their power. I’ve seen so much AFD submission and witnessed ridicules reverting wars that I'm questioning my sanity for wanting to participate with Wiki.
I’ve rewritten the sentence you suggested, made some other minor improvements and repaired the link. I don’t know how to add any more references without using press releases from their company or filling it with insignificant and redundant links. I believe that the links to 4 newspapers and a TV station should be sufficient to show notability for now and more can be added in the future as they are found. It’s far from being a FA but if this is not good enough I’m pretty much out of gas and challenge anyone to take the article and write it. I hope we can end this discussion and you will republish the article so I can get to write some others I have an interest in and other editors can have a chance to improve it. Thanks The Hal Apeno (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
You have certainly made some improvements - the article's not nearly as promotional as it was, which is good. I'm still concerned about notability - there are sources, but they are mostly either local or unreliable, and I'm not sure that's enough to pass notability. Still, you've done some good work, and the article's certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion now. I still don't think this article would pass a deletion discussion - all the other articles you gave me examples of have much broader coverage (and if they don't they should probably be nominated for deletion). If you really want, I would be happy to publish the article into the mainspace for you; however, I cannot promise that it will survive a deletion discussion without some more significant coverage from independent, non-local sources. My advice would be to wait until you can find these kinds of sources before publishing (and, if you can't, the sauce probably doesn't need a Wikipedia article yet); if you really want me to publish it, I will, but I'm not sure it would survive. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks ItsZippy, it feels good to have passed the biggest hurdle. I run a restaurant and busy at the moment so let me think about it for a day or so, I want to do some more research on WP notability and make sure it meets the qualifications. I don't want to have to make major changes or defend it again and if I do I want to know what my POV well. Thanks The Hal Apeno (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi ItsZippy, I did some extensive research and believe that the article will pass the test of Notability as described on the page Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Under the section Primary Criteria there are 2 sections to meet and the company meets them both as I have reviewed below.

Depth of coverage The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.

  • All of the articles that have been referenced have a depth of coverage of the company and are not merely trivial coverage as described.

Audience The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.

  • There is an article from Canada so it meets the criteria with at least one international article and shows a strong indication of natability.
  • There are articles from the hot sauce media as well as animal related media so it shows this is not of limited interest.

Although it does not have overwhelming notability, I believe I have enough to prove it is notable from this evidence. I admit I was getting frustrated with the process you have put me through, but I want to thank you for the knowledge I have gained. I would rather know what I’m doing than stumble across it. Please restore the article to mainspace and hopefully it will be improved instead of just challenged. Thanks The Hal Apeno (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, I've published that for you and also made some general improvements to the article. It was still slightly promotional in places (though you've done a very good job yourself), and there were some general formatting issues I fixed too. As always, let me know if you have any further questions. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you sir, I am thinking about an article but will definitely be doing much more research BEFORE I start lol. Thanks The Hal Apeno (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the Talk page is not there. Do you want to restore it or should I create a new one? The Hal Apeno (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
That's probably not necessary, unless you have something specific to say on the talk page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: warning

Thanks for letting me know. I will be more careful from now on.

- Zacharyprice2888 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyprice2888 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

ANEW

Hi, ItsZippy, just a heads up to let you know that I mentioned you here. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Zippy. You're still 18 I see? I thought it had been longer than that! In accordance with the above, I came merely to extend both hands and come quietly (I'm being serious). I make no excuse for the fact that I breached 3RR although not as grossly as is pointed out. There was a self-revert and a separate issue which saw a minor dispute resolved very quickly. It is the rest of it. I ask that you read my long statement carefully taking all citations into account. Take your time if you need, the tone is not sinister but looks that way in its bulk. I am pleased so far that Bbb23 has locked the page and I am only too happy to discuss the matters. You'll notice that my activity this past 24 hours has concentrated heavily in this area - so the 6 accusations from 22 contributions is somewhat disproportionate, then add the 15 contributions on the talk page. In the latest addition, I am currently trying to get to the bottom of the issue and will gladly move towards restoring the opposing version once I get the information required. I'm doing my best, I just have a nasty habit of being heavy-handed, hence if a block looms then I'll have to hope it is very temporary. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Please do act in whatever form you find necessary. Having to face Evlekis's revert-warring and unacceptable behavior in these topics is very burdensome for everybody (in this case he was reverting 4 different users and accusing them of "mud slinging the Serbian nation"). Recently he has started accusing even uninvolved editors who merely express their views on these issues[1][2]. Every time he causes disruption he basically attributes his breach of 3RR etc. to "alliances against him". In the last part of the 3RR discussion he's mentioning a user who hasn't edited the article as part of an alliance against him so in reference to his pointless comment I replied "he hasn't even noticed it, so how is he related?" and that led Evlekis to yet another "conspiracy" conclusion[3]. Can any kind of productive work be completed with this sort of reasoning and debating?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(unindent)Given that that article has been locked he's edit warring on Ukshin Hoti([4]) and of course ignoring the sources once more.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I'll respond on the ANEW thread. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Btw the content he's reverting on Ukshin Hoti is a summary of the locked article (Bardhyl Çaushi). Thanks for taking the time to deal with the issue.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to recommend we extend Evlekis's block to something more punitive, such as indef. He has been pushing pro-Serb propaganda on Wikipedia for an eye on 8 years by switching Albanian ethncities for Serb, bold reverts and writing their names in Cyrillic, mitigating Serb responsibility of war crimes in their wars in the 1990's and worst of all, edit warring beyond all reasonable cause and ignoring WP:BRD. Block his account for good. Keithstanton (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Keith, even I if thought that an indef block was appropraite, I would not be able to unilaterally apply it myself. I blocked Evlekis for 24 hours as a result of a 3RR violation, which I can do because 3RR is a bright-line rule which has broad community support; an indefinite block for tendentious editing would requite a full community discussion and consensus and would be inappropraite for me to apply on my own. Further, I'm not convinced that an indefinite block would be the best course of action. I would prefer to pursue alternative solutions to the issue before resorting to an indefinite block. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well you've got my support, you can count on Bobrayner and Arianit and some others. Surely canvassing is okay for this, removal of disruptive editor. Sure he'll get support from other disruptive Balkan POV pushers but we can nuke them one by one and the site will be a better place, no locked pages, no editwarring! Keithstanton (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No, canvassing is not ok, and badgering me to unilaterally indefinitely block a user is completely inappropriate. If you want a community discussion about Evlekis, take it to ANI or RFCU where a wide range of uninvolved and impartial editors can look at the evidence and come to a consensus. To claim that there is consensus to indefinitely block a user because you and a group of people who don't like him agree that he should be blocked shows not only a misunderstanding of consensus, but also a failure to appreciate how collaborative editing works. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The canvassing matter like other issues has been explained to Keith many times[5] and the award was completely inappropriate. At least he started paying attention to the guidelines[6], although it's a very slow adjustment.


  • Btw after Evlekis was unblocked he continued the edit-warring right where he left it before the block: on Ukshin Hoti[7] as regards the content related to Bardhyl Çaushi by reverting even the sources bobrayner had added for the term "Serb"[8]. Note that his revert right before the block is based on a claim of lack/ambiguity/misrepresentation of sources by bobrayner[9], however, after bobrayner provided the source in the new revert/blanking Evlekis claims that actually there's no need to even mention any context, thus "justifying" his latest revert.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Evlekis was unbocked on the grounds that he restrict himself to 1RR for 6 months, an outcome which I fully endorse. As far as I can see, Evlekis has stuck to this (unless you have evidence to the contrary). Instead of reporting to me every edit he makes, I suggest you try try to continue some kind of discussion, now that Evlekis has made some positive steps towards resolving the conduct issues in this dispute. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Jack,nice to see you again although infrequently.---zeeyanketu discutez 19:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

When do the tags get removed?

The last discussion on whether or not israel gets added into the infobox ended with no consensus.

The discussion on whether or not Kurds get a third column ended with no consensus. Furthermore I removed the double line separating the Kurds and the Syrian opposition (due to now confirmed cooperation by a RS), and no one contested.

No one but two ips have challenged the article since. (The ips were not specific, just blatantly decrying the article as a whole without going into any specific (not suprising given that the conflict is considered to be the most controversial international current event right now).

I would like to know if I have permission to remove the tag by now, or if you can remove the tag. Sopher99 (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sopher. Whether or not you remove the tag is not up to me (I neither agree nor disagree with it being there). The reason I asked you to leave it alone was that it was causing an edit war, which was disruptive to the article. If you believe you now have a good reason to remove the tag, go an discuss it on the article's talk page to see if you can establish consensus with other editors - if you can, then remove it; if not, keep discussing. If you find it really hard to come to a consensus with other editors, you can try using the dispute resolution noticeboard. Alternatively, if you would like input from a wider group of non-involved editors, try asking at the neutral point of view noticeboard. I don't mind whether the tag stays or goes, I would just like to see it removed after discussion and consensus to avoid it causing disruption to the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ice cube

You declined my request for protection of Ice cube, however I feel Pending Changes would help the article. It has a looong term history of vandalism and no constructive edits from new/unregistered users. What do you think? Vacation9 23:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vacation9. I declined your protection request because I don't feel that here's enough activity on the article justify protection - even pending changes. Although most IP edits do seem to be vandalism, I'm not sure there are enough of the to justify protecting the article and putting off good faith IP users. If you notice an increase in the amount of IP vandalism on the article, then feel free to request protection again; otherwise, I think it is probably better to revert vandalism when it happens but keep the article open so that good faith anonymous editors can get involved in editing Wikipedia. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions against Iran

You protected the article against further edits except by Admin. I don't think this was the right action, as you froze the content in a very dubious state. The lead is inaccurate and the section on impacts on Iranians consists almost entirely of material that is not relevant to the article. A better choice would have been to revert the offending edits and block the offending editor, who does not seem to recognize the has been completely unwilling to address the substance on the discussion page. NPguy (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi NPguy, thanks for bringing this up with me - you do seem to have some valid concerns. I protected the page to prevent the edit war that was going on from continuing and to encourage discussion. I understand that you're not happy with the version that was protected; however, in order not to support any side in a dispute, I protected the article as I found it (I would only restore a previous version after protected if there was obvious vandalism/BLP violations/copyrighted material on the page, or a very clear point before the edit war started). I appreciate that you've been discussing the issue on the talk page - that's really good to see - however, when you're doing this, you should not be continuing the edit war on the article. If another editor starts edit warring without discussion, it is best to not edit the page and instead seek help from an administrator. I am willing to unprotect the page, but I will do so on the condition that the edit warring ceases; editors who continue to edit back and forth (with or without discussion) will be blocked, whatever side of the dispute they are on. Does this sound reasonable to you? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi ItsZippy,
He had not yet contributed and He does not helped, to solve the concerns in talk page even a line, after the froze. So please do not let him continue what he had done before again till he understands how to have negotiation and have dialogue. See the talk page of the article.
Thanks,KhabarNegar (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
and plus dear itszippy can I ask for any action for this lies "offending edits and block the offending editor", where is the offending edits?
"who does not seem to recognize the has been completely unwilling to address the substance on the discussion page." isnt it obvious lie?!
This is the talk page: Talk:Sanctions against Iran
Who is the one that unwilling to address the substance on the discussion page?!
Regards,KhabarNegar (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope you are following the discussion on the talk page of the article in dispute. NPguy (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not convinced that the edit warring will stop if I unprotect the page. Unless I can be convinced of this, I won't unprotect it early. Otherwise, there are 2 days left of protection, during which further discussion can take place. Remember, if you find it difficult to reach consensus, try using our dispute resolution procedures. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

Reverting old text

Could you take a look at my latest responses? I generally agree with you, but I think you are wrong here on 2 counts - I can't find anything in policy that says this and the latest talk page discussions on the issue don't back this either. Plus, his revert shows the same pov as all of this SPA's edits. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And his next action after posting that he was seeking consensus was to revert again. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Please, please don't take this as a criticism, I just think this needs clarifying. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi Doug, thanks for your message. I've now blocked Bacterioid for 24 hours following this edit, which continued the edit war after he had been told (and had agreed to) seek consensus. The discussion you linked me on EWN is interesting; I don't think that there's consensus either way as to whether old edits should count. In this particular case, the second edit was difficult because, although it did reverse the actions of another editor, it was reversing actions from a long time ago. When I responded to the request I had to determine whether the second edit really could be counted as a revert, and, more importantly, how best to prevent the continuation of the edit war. Bacterioid had said that the second edit was not a revert because it was reverting old material; whether or not this is right, I took that to be an indication that he generally understood 3RR and would not breach it. At that point, I hoped that he would be able to seek consensus and cease edit warring. As it happens, he then continued to edit war, which is why I then blocked him. I hope that makes sense; let me know if you have further questions. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense, and thanks for your quick response - and the block of someone I think is a pov SPA - hopefully this will prevent him from being a pov warrior. I hope we can get some policy clarification on this, but it's a bit tricky perhaps. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Article under attack

Hi. Wikioedia has had an article North View Secondary School for some time. Over the past 6/12 months it has come under attack (normally by the addition of annual English premier league fixtures) and was recently (again) given protected status. As a possible attempt to evade this protection, a new article has appeared, entitled North View Secondary School, Yishun, Singapore. And, it contains a complete English premier league fixture list!. This new article was created by User:Barclayspremierleague1 and edited by 121.6.43.177, both of whom vandalised my talk page today. Can you check this out and take any necessary action (OR am I completely ga-ga?) Thanks in advance. Denisarona (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. The original page has already been protected by another admin; I've deleted the new page that was created. If you see further articles pop up, please let me know. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Colleabois & Germans

Hi. This user was reported at WP:AN3 as you know. On Talk:Germans, they are again threatening to remove sentences from the article without consensus, at the moment based solely on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, i.e. what they can see in a historical atlas. I have told them that they must use reliable sources in discussions of content and have mentioned two texts (A Social History of Germany and A History of the German People). They have no interest in using textbooks, which is the standard way to edit wikipedia. Instead they have a strong point of view: they previously edited using the Nijmegen IP 195.169.209.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and have redirected the pages there to their own user and user talk page. They are now engaged in disruptive editing. I have seen similar things on Europe but usually that usually has to do with nationalism related to boundary or trans-continental countries (e.g. E4024). Colleabois is no better. He seems to have an anti-German point of view as far as I can tell. He is as disruptive as E4024. I am not quite sure what to do about him. I have already left this message on EdJohnston's talk page. Mathsci (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mathsci. As far as I can see, Colleabois has not continued edit warring since I left him a message; that is good to see. Even if you disagree with him (even if he is wrong), it's better to be discussing than to be edit warring. From what I can see, Colleabois does seem to be acting in good faith - it does look like he wants to improve the article, even if he's not quite understood some of our policies. I'd therefore recommend you request some kind of dispute resolution support. Getting a third opinion might be a good start, and the dispute resolution noticeboard would be your best best after that. Hopefully, this will help both of you to see some common ground and get the relevant policies straight so that you can work on improving the article again. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
He is not editing in good faith. His stated intention is to remove all the sentences he tagged previously and that is exactly what he is doing, albeit at a slower rate but with the same doses of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He has expressed no interest in adding any content or looking anything up in sources. So a classic tendentious editor. Just like E4024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), perhaps even worse (look up what happened to her). Any editor that wants to blank uncontroversial neutral content is bad news. In this case the content is easy enough to check. In E4024's case she did not like a certain Greek myth connected with the etymology of Europe. But it turned out that it was because it was a Greek myth and E4024 had a Turkish nationalist point of view. Colleabois' editing as the IP and under this account on Pennsylvania Dutch is not very different. (In one of his last edits with the IP he decided that the classic Belgian dish Moules frites is Dutch.[10]) I am afraid something seems a bit wrong: some kind of Dutch nationalism and possibly a dislike for the Germans. I will not engage further with him if he doesn't want to use sources. Mathsci (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
So far, Colleabois has not carried out his 'threat', so I don't think we need to sanction him for it (if I've missed something, please show me a diff). It might well be the case that you are right (I'd rather not comment on that here); still, I'd like to assume that this editor is acting in good faith. If he is - if he really is interested in improving the encyclopaedia - then he should respond positively to attempts at dispute resolution (your next move from here should be to request a third opinion. That way, you will be able to better establish consensus, and work towards dealing with the issues Colleabois has. If he really is a bad faith user, that should become apparent during attempts at dispute resolution; however, it would be most productive to approach the editor as acting in good faith until he proves otherwise. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Though I agree that adding the fact that eating mussels with fries is as much a Southern Dutch tradition as it is a Northern Belgian one is of course a clear display of dangerous Dutch nationalism (at which Belgians as myself are particularly good), I take offence at the other remarks posted here above, which can only be called slander as far as I'm concerned. The points I've risen have been called valid by two separate users already, the fact Mathsci reverted all of my cite tags four times without any proper rational apart from unjustified and unproven accusations of 'POV'-pushing, doesn't change the fact that content needs sources and if no sources are present or provided that content can be removed. I've told Mathsci repeately that the purpose of the cite tags was to call the issues to attention and provide editors and opportunity to address the issues. He continued to remove the tags and that simply means I will (on the advise of a fellow editor) will in the near future add a summary in which I address the number of unsourced disputed material I earlier tagged and then, if no sources are provided will remove them. That is not disruptive editing, that is not POV pushing, that is WP:SOURCE. Greeting, Colleabois (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Block of Darkwarriorblake

It seems like you blocked User:Darkwarriorblake when you intended to block user:Bluerules; I've undone the block and placed one on the account you put the block notice on. If I've read this situation incorrectly, please feel free to revert my actions without fear of WP:WW. Kuru (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Woah - that was a mistake. Thanks for that. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem - it happens to everyone sooner or later. Kuru (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Heh, I've not blocked myself yet... We'll see. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Bacterioid followup

Blocked as a sockpuppet of Mikemikev, one of our racist puppetmasters. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I shall put Franz Boas on my watchlist. The reference to Slrubenstein on the talk page and the racist content by Kevin B. MacDonald placed in the text was something of a giveaway. I noticed that account on R&I and was in the midst of preparing as SPI/CU report when Elockid blocked it along with Neorakian, an account I had previously tagged. Mathsci (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for letting me know. I'm not so good at identifying sockpuppets; it's good to see this one caught. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Amina Inloes

Hi ItsZippy, it is though not important but I would like to know that can it be happened?. I was asked to work on the said article, I did here, I could not move the article because of this. The same article and the same edit work by me, but main space article's edit summary/history does not show the user name. Have you any idea of the kind of matter?.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Justice, thanks for your message. That does look like confusing situation; it seems that someone tried to perform a copy & paste move to the userfied version of the article, and then both articles continued to be developed. Because of licencing issues, the history of those two pages needs to be merged, which is something I'm not great at. I'll ask at the administrator's noticeboard to see if another admin can help us out. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It is done and fixed in accordance to the rules, thanks for your helping in this regard.Justice007 (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:Rollback

Regarding your removal of my rollback rights, personally I think it is a bit extreme to revoke them just for one misuse (that was in good faith) after several previous uses where it has been used correctly for vandalism. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Replied at user talk page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ItsZippy/Archive_15&oldid=1146620143"