User talk:Coffeepusher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


There is no Cabal

Personal reference[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Coffeepusher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

E-Meter[edit]

Hi, I need help to update and rewrite the E-Meter article, as it's now significantly outdated and no other "Scientology" editor seems to have noticed this. The article needs to be further updated for the Mark VIII Ultra E-meter, as obviously that's the latest released model, and including a writeup of the Super Power GAT II launch event. I have posted a picture of it, but I think it's a pretty average pic, and if anyone has a better pic of it, it would be great. As it stands at the moment, the article is pretty messy. Colliric (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to helping you, but I couldn't even commit to starting the project until mid January. let me know what you think.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Cthulhu[edit]

Hi Coffeepusher, thanks for your reply on the "Cthulhu mythos in popular culture" Talk page. Let me correct you one one point: you said that Cthulhu only occurs in one of Lovecraft's works. This is wrong--Cthulhu is mentioned by name in many of Lovecraft's stories. There's "The Call of Cthulhu", and then his name is mentioned during a character's alcoholic ranting in "The Shadow over Innsmouth", and there's another story whose title I forget in which the narrator finds a small green statue of Cthulhu. More generally, Cthulhu is a recurring motif in Lovecraft's opus. He does not, however, appear in HERBERT WEST, REANIMATOR or FROM BEYOND. Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I understood that, notice I said he only appears in one work, assuming the alien creature is male of course. The Cthulhu mythos is a name used to distinguish the entirety of Lovecrafts works and a select canon of other works, which include Herbert West, Reanimator and From Beyond. Cthulhu doesn't need to appear, or any other alien entity for it to be part of the Cthulhu Mythos. Coffeepusher (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to take the liberty to copy this on the talk page, cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

Hi, Coffepusher. I am writing to ask you to please score out your accusation/claim in this section of the article talk page. You said "Replacing the lede photograph with a picture of a public official to publicly shame her (your admission) for something she said was a WP:BLP violation and didn't consider WP:WEIGHT in relation to the article." If you score out the words "to publicly shame her (your admission) for something she said was a WP:BLP violation and" then your comment would be factually (and grammattically) reasonable. I never admitted what you claim I did, as it is not the case. Such an accusation, involving a clear and deliberate breach of fundamental and important WP policies, should not be made based solely on your overrall impression, however accurate your impression may seem to you. When you say "(your admission)", you are making a factually innaccurate statement in support of a serious accusation. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that, left to my own devices for nearly a month of editing the article, my POV may have become overwhelming in the article. It is a subject that most people tend to have a POV about, and I am probably no exception. Your accusation turns the whole issue into a strictly personal, rather than content, dispute. I object to it on the grounds that the accusation is untrue. I have replied to your message on the talk page, quoting a comment I made which appears to be the one you miscontrued or conflated(?) with your overrall impression. Please either score out the accusation or leave another short message there. The accusation should not remain on the article talk page, as it only serves to poison the atmosphere, in my opinion. If it was just on my personal talk page it wouldn't be worth bothering you about, obviously. Until you made the comment you seemed eminently reasonable, which is why I am bothering to ask this. Maybe you could instead add, eg. "this is my overrall impression from your comments", "this is my interpretation", or words to that effect (or whatever - I'm not claiming to read your mind). I am not trying to waste your time, here, I just want to make sure that the process of improving the article can be carried out without acrimoniousness if at all possible (if I do continue with it, that is - and I haven't found another article to work on, yet). I am already shocked/anguished about having all my hard work removed rather than edited (especially straight after a 48-hour inquisition at ANI about being branded a sockpuppet without evidence, which was fascinating but draining). I hope this isn't a 'wall of text'. You were probably annoyed that I appeared to be questioning the consensus already - I was just stunned by the low quality of the old article, and at a loss how to proceed. Cheers zzz (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Ps It's not that your impression is a wildly unreasonable one, on the face of it. However, the fact is that I included the picture for genuine Wikipedian reasons, and would certainly not have included it otherwise. Thanks. zzz (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot strike the comment. The reason is because I stand by my statement.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Your "statement" is a deliberate lie, but no problem. Now I now what I'm dealing with here. zzz (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Call of Cthulhu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoops! Fixed that, thank you DBL bot!Coffeepusher (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Recreational drug use shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. zzz (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Now this is interesting. The Recreational drug use history page tells a different story. So as soon as the administrator protection was lifted, you immediately restored this version. You were reverted by Johnuniq, which you reverted Signedzzz revert 1. That edit was reverted by jmh649 revert 1, which you reverted Signedzzz revert 2. I reverted your edit Coffeepusher revert 1, which you reverted Signedzzz revert 3. You are the only editor who has more than one revert.
I think you need to calm down and stop edit warring before you get blocked.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
To summarize.
User:Signedzzz reverts=3
revert 1, revert 2, revert 3.
User:Coffeepusher reverts=1
revert 1.
User:Johnuniq reverts=1
revert 1.
User:jmh649 reverts=1
revert 1.
This is the very definition of edit warring against consensus.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)