User talk:Coffeepusher/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Getting in over my head on Mike Rinder

Hi, Coffeepusher. I saw the statement in Mike Rinder that "Rinder now lives in Denver, Colorado", with a footnote citing an article from 2009. So I changed it to "Rinder lived in Denver, Colorado as of 2009". But checking the history, I came across this edit by you, where you update the info and give a citation to 2012. I'm sure your information is correct, but there seems to be a problem with the footnote — it didn't "take". I think it might be because you used the short version of the footnote the first time (in the infobox) and the complete version the second time, instead of the other way around. I tried to fix it, but it defeated my footnote skills. So I've got in over my head… Could you take a look, please, and also change the sentence as appropriate? Bishonen | talk 10:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC).

Howdy! Thank you for letting me know about that. It appears that there were two full citations, the first one and then mine. The first one was the one that wikipedia cited all the footnotes to. I made the mistake of putting the accessdate in the "date" section, so the first one was more correct than my addition. I have removed my citation, double checked the article (it is still live and all the information is correct to the best of my knowledge) and nothing else remains to be done, your sentence is correct. I hope this clarifies what you were asking, if I misunderstood you please let me know. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well.. I'm not entirely sure I understand your explanation. ;-) Footnote templates are like barbed wire to me. But if it's ok by you now, then I'm fine with it. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC).

AA

Hi Coffeepusher, I have made a few edits over at AA and effectiveness of AA and either everyone loves my changes or, more likely, nobody is watching! I am concerned that all we seem to talk about over there is member retention as opposed to "effectiveness" which would be more related to outcomes such as drinking days, etc. If you have any time or interest some additional eyes couldn't hurt. Thanks. Desoto10 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Howdy Desoto! Man that section brought back some memories! I think we created that second article (effectiveness of AA) when Fred (he was an IP starting with 207 I think) kept pushing negative studies into the main article, so we broke the article apart into a new article for them. I actually miss him, haven't seen Fred around for ages. Well WP:MYSPACE and all, I took a look at your changes and I think the subheadings make a lot of sense. My only concern is that people may try to hang fringe views into those sections, but those tend to get wiped out quickly. Thanks for contacting me, this week is a little rough but I will try and make more of an appearance to the AA article. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Yeah, it was a battlefield for a while! We are having much more fun over at Medical Uses of Silver. In reality, the Effectiveness article does not add very much that isn't in the main article but, well, there it is. Anyway, this is clearly not a pressing issue, so when and if you have time, have at it. Best-- Desoto10 (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Erica Andrews, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please don't waste your time

posting on my talk page about a discussion that I'm already aware of having been mentioned in it. All it does is waste my time because I have to look at two different places for something I'm already aware of.--Laun chba ller 17:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you were monitoring the blpn. Sorry for the trouble of giving you notice.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No need. Linking to a userpage gives that user a notification, effectively beckoning that user to that conversation.--Laun chba ller 07:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Alcoholism page

Hey I was wondering if i edited the alcoholism page right or was it wrong again?A Bhagwandin (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the comments left on your page and I agree that those are some concerns. Lets take a look at what we need to do. First off, we need to find some Reliable sources for your addition, then we need to format them into inline citations. I can do that for you well if you would like, but I do need some sources. Why don't you get back to me when you have those sources ready and we can work on this together. I'm going to post this on your page as well, but most people keep a conversation on a single page so usually I would expect you to monitor my talk page. Also, in the future, please place your comments at the bottom of a person's talk page. I know you didn't know that. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing on the Mike Rinder page

Hi Coffeepusher, Pardon my noobness. You reverted my edits to the 'Mike Rinder' article, and I believe I get why. However, in the case of the last one specifically I used the villagevoice.com website as my source for two references. Despite the fact they have a subdomain of 'blogs' the articles posted there are various news articles and it is a recognized news source. In this case, it seems it's not your usual blog. Could you please reconsider? Thanks, Mieren (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Mieren, I do appreciate you contacting me. Unfortunately in this case I didn't revert as a matter of my personal preference, but due to wikipedia's rules regarding what types of sources can be used. Blog's are never acceptable, particularly when they are used to promote a specific point of view on an issue. If you also read our varifiability principle as well as WP:WEIGHT you will have a much better idea of what kinds of edits are acceptable. This is particularly important in the Scientology section of Wikipedia, since there has been a lot of dispute over what is acceptable within the articles, we need to make sure that every addition can stand up to scrutiny. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, Thanks for taking the time to give me more info. I didn't realize I was taking my first stab in a more challenging subject. I will study up some more and give it another shot. :) Mieren (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

re Request for Your Help on Erica Andrews

Sorry I'm a bit busy with other quality improvement drives right now, so I don't have time to look into this. Good luck to you in your quality improvement efforts. — Cirt (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

re Request for Your Help on Leah Remini

Hi Coffeepusher, Got your message about the cite sources on Remini article. I get that blogs are not acceptable sources. Not sure why refs or links to Remini's own tweets or statements from her are not accepted. The New York Post just ran an article on Remini leaving scientology and I have used that for now. Hope this is okay. Thanks for your help. Headstar (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time at this second, but I can answer your question regarding tweets. These are not an acceptable source for a few reasons, first off tweets are not always from the person in question (ghost accounts) so we discourage the use. Secondly primary sources have a tenancy to be promotional in nature or give a very bias view of events therefore we prefer third party sources which have already been through a thorough editing process. Ill take a look at the entry when I have some time and let you know what I think. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Scientology/Grant Cardone

Want to chime in on Talk: Grant Cardone? Thimbleweed (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Coffeepusher! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Tentinator 06:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Clear my confusion and explain this edit.

Hi, noticed this edit that you made and would like an explanation besides what you've already mentioned in the summary. It still gave me a pause and Can you clarify? sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

not a problem. Please read wikipedia's original research policy, specifically the section on Synthesis. The edit speaks at length to criticize Narconon's use of niacin, and offer scientific evidence to debunk Narconon's claims, but it does so by...

bringing in reliable sources which back up Narconon's practices using Niacin.
bringing in separate reliable sources which talk about the effects of Niacin.
and based on these two claims, the edit makes the separate claim that Narcanon is wrong without bringing up any reliable sources to back up this third statement, thus using wikipedia to engage in original research through synthases of two reliable sources. Hope this helps. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

now if you can find a reliable source which states BOTH that narconon uses a drug bomb AND that the effects are harmful that is perfectly fine, but even then you can only summarize that article, it doesn't open the door to insert a bunch of research that has nothing to do with narconon. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, what made me ask was so much apparently sourced content was removed with nothing on the talk page. Now what surprised me is how such content was there in the article for so long in the first place. Nice work. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

no worries, what brought it to my attention was the recent post about cleaning up the article. I took a look at it and that entire section just jumped out at me as something that was blatant OR.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Gey edit

Blatant vandalism ? ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.59 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

yep! Enjoy your ban. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

TOCA (Habermas)

Just came across that page. You did a really neat job there. Big Thanks!

PS Though I don't agree with German philosophy being best (as per your moniker), I do like the Beatles, too. 188.115.11.71 (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, there is still quite a bit of work needed but it is a start.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

PROMIS = PRISM

Nein, PROMIS verhält sich wie PRISM... ;-) [[1]] --79.223.19.98 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

you are correct, I have made the change.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Vielen Dank!--79.223.19.98 (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Bitte. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Kannst Du bitte auch meine Änderungen bei Inslaw wieder herstellen.--79.223.19.98 (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

you are going to have to go to that page's talk page if you want to make those changes. That page has a rough consensus on how it is supposed to look, if you look at the wiki-code you will find this statement "-PLEASE NOTE WP:CAPS: BEFORE MAKING UNNECESSARY CAPITALIZATION CHANGES FOR BOTH INSLAW AND PROMIS." So the short answer is I don't feel comfortable making that change when there appears to be a consensus. Hope that helps. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, tkx, didn't saw that! Could both spelling (Schreibweise) be correct? --79.223.19.98 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure, it isn't an area that I have any expertise in. Why don't you check it out and if you feel your use is correct give your reasons on the talk page. If you don't generate any conversation on the talk page after...say 2 days or so, then make the change and see what happens. I won't revert you.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. --79.223.19.98 (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

STiki emergency

Hello! Due to a security update to the wiki software, older versions of STiki are no longer functional. You've been identified as a user of STiki, and are kindly asked to upgrade to the current version at Wikipedia:STiki#Download before continuing with use of the tool. Continuing to use older versions will be detrimental to the STiki project. Please see Wikipedia talk:STiki#Errors for a discussion of this issue or to respond to this message. Thank you! 04:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Masonic Program

Dear Coffeepusher, as a fellow editor on Scientology articles I would like to know your opinion on "The Masonic Program" that was run by the Guardians Office. You may be aware there is now a reliable source for the existence of this program, which is outspoken critic Nancy Many(who is supported by her friend Tory Christman and many others). She described the controversial and highly classified program in detail in the interview she gave to the Discovery Channel, explicitly stating the auditing program, in which L Ron Hubbard(who naturally wrote it) claimed he was in fact "the Messiah", was administed to her after she was a trusted agent in the GO.

Obviously the interview justifies inclusion in the OSA page(as it also included detailed description of Many's significant operational role in Operation Freakout, I have put a link to the interview video on the OSA page) but I think this possibly COULD affect the "list of Guardians Office operations/programs" and possibly even more-so the OT8 article? Certainly it's possible this secret program could have been "mistaken" for OT8(the Fishman version?). I'd love to hear your opinion on the fact there now a reliable source for that bizzare Guardians program. Colliric (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

hay, thank you for the heads up. I was actually unaware that a reliable source had come out, ill have to take a look at it.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

ok, Ive watched the show. My opinion is that I agree that it can probably be included in the OSA page, I would be careful about adding it to more pages. I'm concerned about weight, and while this source does significantly cover OSA, the Masonic program isn't really talked about enough to justify inclusion on other pages. Just my opinion mind you. Coffeepusher (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick question

There was nothing objectionable about my edit you removed here, right? You just removed my edit since it was a response to the NPA violation? Howicus (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for checking and no there was nothing objectionable at all, I really appreciated your comment. I just decided to remove the entire section since the point of the section was to attack me, and another editor who I have never edited with was inspired to use it for personal attacks. Thank you again for jumping in and clarifying the situation. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Howicus (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with newcomers

Hi,

I noticed you reverted the edits of Rubym123 at Exorcism. Since newer editors may not know to check Page history for edit summaries, or to check the talk page, I request you to just send them a short note, even if automated (I believe revert button on Twinkle auto-sends it) so they know what is wrong with their edits. Just a request, that's all.

Thanks,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

[Leave a talkback please?]

Thank you for the request. In retrospect I agree that I handled that situation poorly, I will take your request seriously. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Hill

I have moved your link to Innisfree poetry bookstore and cafe to the See also section of The Hill (Boulder). If this is not acceptable, please discuss it on the articles talk page before restoring the link. Please also be aware that Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy. If you have a connection to the the bookstore you must, at a minimum, disclose that. ~KvnG 15:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That is fine, I agree with your reasoning and placement of innisfree in the see also section. please see WP:AGF and practice it in the future. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

My assumption was that you maybe were not aware of WP:COI. ~KvnG 15:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

that statement isn't reflected in your accusations against me found on Talk:The Hill (Boulder) which appear to be an attempt to chill the discussion. Wikipedia is founded on the principle of collaboration, and accusing editors of impropriety based on exactly no evidence (outside of the fact that I wrote an short article about a bookstore) is contrary to those principles. I actually assumed you knew about WP:AGF, but you obviously needed the reminder.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

E-Meter

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

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

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)

Your comment

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)

September 2014

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)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Coffeepusher. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You should read this helpful list

See Timbo's Rule 14 User:Carrite#Timbo's_Rules Atsme☯^Consult 02:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And this one is for you Coffeepusher (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Friendly warning about DS at Emerson

Before you go reverting BLP violations - you need to recheck those sources. ~~I will file an AE - not what you want.~~ This unsourced/poorly sourced attack on Emerson has to stop. Atsme☯^Consult 01:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I have read the source about Islamophobia closer than you have. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The source that was cited said nothing about Islamophobia - it wasn't even a term back then. Read it again. Atsme☯^Consult 01:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I did, 4th paragraph, 25th word. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

are you filing that AE? Just curious, because I actually do want you to. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You need more than one 1999 obscure bi-weekly report from Egypt to make such a contentious statement about Emerson in the lead. The other sources cited include a letter BY Emerson to the Times. The rest are questionable reports by partisan sources such as CAP. I'm calling you on a BLP violation. You can revert to what I had written, or I'm taking this to 3RR - your choice. Atsme☯^Consult 02:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

so what is it? do you need only one source per statement otherwise it is synth? or do you need more than one source per statement otherwise it is a BLP violation? You have made both claims on my talk page alone, so which is it? Coffeepusher (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it to you this way - a BLP-N resulted in the removal of the Islamophobia template from Emerson's IPT organization because it was determined to be a BLP violation. For you to attempt to relive that disaster by citing a 15 yr. old obscure bi-weekly report in Egypt is complete madness. You will lose that fight. I don't want to get into a war with you. I am fine with the criticism, but it has to be worded and cited properly. I consult you to not attempt to use the Islamophobia label. It will not go well for you. Atsme☯^Consult 02:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

are you filling out the AE as you promised, or was that simply an idle threat to chill the discussion? If you do not intend to file, are you going to strike the comment? Just curious. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Promise not to beat me with it?

I'll extend the olive branch.
Atsme☯^Consult 03:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of warning template

I was not edit warring. I was following BLP policy, and changed the text to correct those violations. SEE WP:BLP Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.Be advised that the abuse of warning templates is frowned upon. It is also a courtesy to not template the regulars. Also, do not mistake my kindness for weakness. I offered the olive branch because I simply didn't see the Islamophobia reference in that 1999 obscure bi-weekly report from Egypt. It was not an admission that the BLP violations did not exist. You might want to read the policies it violated, including NPOV, V, and BLP. Atsme☯^Consult 15:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

please read the template, if you revert three times in a twenty four hour period you are close to violating 3RR. You in fact have now reverted four times, I placed the template the third time you reverted, which means you were warned and ignored that warning. You have your interpretation of BLP, but from my count you are now reverting against three editors, not just me. You like quoting polices at people, but when other people tell you that your interpretation is wrong you are working against consensus. good luck on your vendetta. Cheers Mate Coffeepusher (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Again - BLP violations are not counted as reverts. Furthermore, I changed the paragraph and included proper citations to make it policy compliant. Not the same thing. Thx. Atsme☯^Consult 18:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, since you reverted me: 19:37, January 21, 2015‎ Coffeepusher (talk | contribs)‎ . . (55,565 bytes) (-522)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 643587401 by Cwobeel: Now that IS WP:SYNTH. trying to discredit the Center for American Progress by adding a source which doesn't mention Emerson at all. (TW)), you might want to do something about the sources now cited in the lead. You might also look at the revert of the template I added for needed citation regarding the contentious statement about criticisms - BLP clearly states: Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. Atsme☯^Consult 18:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

good luck with your vendetta, I'm interested in how this turns out for you. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous

Read a policy before you cite it, please. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I did. Position of a statement within the article must reflect WP:WEIGHT. Completely invalidating Alcoholics Anonymous with a generalized "there has never" statement right before talking about it's effects is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to read the reference and WP:WEIGHT again. There was no "there has never" statement. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Good start at Emerson, just one more thing....

You're almost there, but I ask that you please read the Sharpton paragraph so you'll have a better understanding of why each criticism (contentious statement) has to be sourced directly, not from multiple sources, which in essence is bad business because it appears that you're violating WP:SYNTH. It must be stated as the opinion of....with the inline citation....and you balance that statement with the response from Emerson or what others have said about the contentious opinion. --Atsme☯^Consult 21:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

ok, lets see if you actually understand the policy or are simply quoting policy with no understanding of what it actually means. Here is the test: So in order for it to be WP:SYNTH I need to be using multiple sources which come to a conclusion which isn't found in any of the sources. What is that conclusion which isn't found in any of the sources in this case? Be specific. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

also, you may want to read wall of text, simple arguments tend to be more effective, large copy paste jobs are typically ignored by most editors. Cheers Miss! Coffeepusher (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for standing up to this "Europe is finished" business - the comment is not literal and it is out of context. I've also made another statement (as another example) about the Cameron quote which is out of context. Well, pot and kettle, more or less. "Reception and Controversy" sections are magnets for the problems with BLPs that even Wikimedia Foundation highlights. But anyways... there is only so much we can do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've read your reply and think you covered it nicely. Everything I could say is contained in the exchange between you and SamuelTheGhost, so I will refrain from commenting unless it looks like I should step in. Thank you for your support on that. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You should not have reverted the lead...not good because in doing so, you violated BLP

You should have read my breakdown of the sources at the TP. Atsme☯^Consult 08:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

ok, so right now you are the only one on the talk page who is gunning for the islamophobia statement on the lede. Chris has already said it was significant. Additionally you keep saying "you are violating BLP" as a irrefutable Veto, but frankly it has become an idle threat. By removing sourced content from a WP:BLP which has been exclusively criticisms of the subject matter it appears that you are violating WP:BLP and attempting to produce a promotional piece rather than an encyclopedia article which documents all notable contributions and criticisms. I'm moving this to the talk page, please do not put threats on my talk page, and all relivent discussion should be placed on the talk page of the article. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop being hostile to Atsme, the editor is acting in good faith - just as you are. There is a difference in opinions and stance on the suitability of the material and the sources. In numerous postings both of us have explained why the mere existence of a personal attack on Emerson is not sufficient to include it in a biography. All the foul and horrid things said by pundits should not be included on biographies simply because they are sourced. There is a difference between Bill Clinton's scandal and "George W. Bush hates all black people". And that's being mild. Negativity is easy - it gets a crowd and newspapers are not neutral and are not supposed to be neutral. WP:NEWSORG is worth a read, but I seriously caution reinserting a direct cause of "Islamophobia/c" sourced to a sentence or less. Emerson is a divisive figure and Fear Inc is the one - as mentioned before - which actually gives an argument worthy of use because it has depth. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for an intelligible response succinctly explaining the issues, Chris. I was wondering what you read in Fear Inc. that you felt justified "use"? The reason I ask is because after thorough discussion of the Fear Inc. report at IPT, it was determined to be a very biased report and was adamantly disputed by Emerson. Thx. Atsme☯^Consult 17:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Frankly she (her userbox's identify her gender) is the one attacking me, and engaging in WP:BATTLEFIELD tactics to remove "liberal bias." She has threatened to take me to AE, every edit she disagrees with "violates BLP" "violates consensus" "violates RS" or "violates variability" with either no explanation or block quotes cut and pasted from the sources. she has posted on my user talk page multiple times to threaten me with sanctions or accusing me personally of BLP violations. She has personally attacked me on the talk page multiple times. She has become disruptive on this page. If she would respond in a way that showed she was willing to discuss I would be glad to edit with her, but it is obvious that it is a zero sum game for her, and the only correct edit is her edit. Ill pay attention to my interactions, but I'm not the one who is making this hostile. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

now as to your point about how you and her have explained your position, that is correct. Unfortunately it run's contrary to what the uninvolved editors on the WP:BLPN, myself, and at least two other editors have said. The blanket deletion of the word Islamophobia at all costs is not following WP:BLP policy, and the sourcing is good. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Your allegations are not accurate, Coffeepusher. I explained why I phrased the lead, and posted those reasons to your TP above. You ignored my consult, and along with a few others continued to revert my edits despite what more experienced editors have advise you. FYI - ALL BLPs are under DS, which I advised you of from the get-go, but you still refuse to listen. I even offered you an olive branch, hoping you would understand the problems, but instead, I am now seeing a more aggressive tactic from you accompanied by spurious claims to shine the spotlight away from your own disruptive behavior. You have posted a couple of very disturbing comments in what appears to be a passive aggressive manner - the obvious reference to my gender, and the comment you posted about my real identity at my TP with some excuse about not having a user email address. I consult you to stop this behavior. You have been advised. Atsme☯^Consult 18:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

um... the reference to your gender is simply to avoid the gender neutral "they" and to show that you prefer to be called "she" as per your userbox's. If this is not the case you can delete the userbox, but getting pissed off when someone uses information YOU YOURSELF PROVIDED is a little disengenuous. My comment on your talk page was simply out of concern that you have in fact posted your real identity (full name) on wikipedia and if it is a mistake you should probably take care of it. I even gave instructions on how to delete the entire conversation so it would remain private. What is your threat? I'm being advised of what? You have already been asked once not to post threats on my userpage, and I consider this a violation of that request. Do not post threats on my talk page, you have threatened me on my talk page numerous times, this is your second warning. Cheers miss!Coffeepusher (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme.... what? Coffeepusher did no such offense and I am finding such assertions to not only be unhelpful, but increasing trying. I do not think anyone will find any merit in Atsme's allegations and I would be strongly against any person who thinks otherwise given the clear evidence. Atsme is emotionally involved and heated - and it is contributing to a battleground which is diminishing the otherwise civil conversion which we would be having. It seems to have conflated the issue and set editors against each other and I think ignoring such wild accusations might be best. Similarly, I did not respond to NeilN for the same reasons. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we are beginning to have an understanding!

I see you have understood my position not as being of one side or the other. There is a reason I axed the praise and the negative "reception" section in full. I am not eloquent or very expressive in my arguments at times. I have very high standards of accuracy and I dislike opinions on a person's life, motives or work. I feel that politics is an arena and it extends to Wikipedia as a battleground because of the nature of the sources readers are exposed to. Everyone is a fan of fiscal responsibility on a personal level, but bring politics into it and you might not have all your friends anymore. The Obama page is free from even the accusations and is pretty much plain disinterested facts instead of the pundit talking points. I'd like Emerson and all other biographies of living persons to be consisted entirely of disinterest facts and not have a single scrap of "reception". Some of our pages are little more than grade-school bullying and this Islamophobe accusation was no different. While other issues exist with the text - it takes a really hands off and level approach to do this and I thank you for being a moderate in your responses. While you brushed off the "Europe is finished" and its subsequent rant, I see no difference in that with other accusations - but we might have some ways to go before understanding each other.... I'm not exactly the most clear person. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris, I actually think you have taken a rather hard position on one side, but that is irrelevant as I was documenting a request and if you read it as representing yourself as neutral then I did do what I intended to do. Now one concern I do have with that post is that I put a "talk quote" around your statement to highlight the fact that I was representing someone elses position, but I'm afraid that the fact that it is formatted differently may unintentionally delegitimize your statement and color people's perception of your statement (people tend to gloss over things that are obviously not part of the continuing discussion). As such, if you decide to free your comment from the talk page quote code, and re-position it below my signature, it may be taken more seriously, or you can simply leave it as is. As I said on the talk page, I have exactly NO interest in misrepresenting you in this discussion. Your call, I may be over reacting. Cheers Mate!Coffeepusher (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Except, you're wrong. There are plenty of spinoff Obama articles that contain reception and analysis. They are split off to make the size of the main article manageable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:ChrisGualtieri I just read what I wrote and cringed so please let me clarify, when I say "you have a hard position on one side" I'm not trying to say you are editing with a bias or have a POV issue. I'm simply stating that right now there are a lot of editors who are not convinced the others are doing the right thing, and you are one of them and I am another on the opposite side of the fence. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is understandable given the situation - and no offense was taken. You covered the entire argument I made and I thank you for that. Whether or not people agree with my argument is now left to a new group of editors. You have given my argument a test and well- let it be tested. Though, I'm more of the "no commentary" type for biographies, but I do know I am in the minority with such a stance. My experience has lead me to be immensely suspicious of political commentary and the opinions of others. Either way - if it fails - could you knock the "fomenting Islamophobia" part off and simply attribute "has been derided as an Islamophobe by X" and pick the most authoritative analysis and argument behind it? I really would prefer the Fear Inc. claims (which are the most substantial and which apparently has a rebuttal by Emeson) as the most appropriate. Though the two quotes at Gale are suitable alternatives. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

We can certainly start there. I was also going to use the academic piece as well to show a sustained discourse. But we can deal with all that after the BLPN. The article is going to be protected until we all come to a consensus, so I guess we need to work together ;). Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Read this source. This checked out and I'm staying off it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism

Hi. I'm going through the names on the former Cultural Marxism talk page and inviting people back to give it a more npov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to the Great Colorado Wiknic 2015

The Great Colorado Wiknic 2015

Who: All Wikipedia and Wikimedia users in Colorado and their families are invited. New users are specifically encouraged to attend.

What: The Great Colorado Wiknic 2015.

When: Sunday afternoon, July 5, 2015, from 12:00 to 4:00 pm MDT.

Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.

Please add your username to our Attendees list so we know how many folks to expect. You can subscribe to our Wikimedia Colorado e-mail list to receive notice of future Wikimedia Colorado activities.

Your hosts: Buaidh and BikeSally 15:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.)

Wiknic

Don't forget the Colorado Wiknic this Sunday afternoon. We hope to see you there. Buaidh 16:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
(You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Rescheduled Colorado Wiknic

The Great Colorado Wiknic 2016 has been rescheduled from June 26 to August 7 due to a conflict with Wikimania 2016. My apologies for the inconvenience. I hope you can join us on Sunday afternoon, August 7. Yours aye, Buaidh 21:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Colorado Wiknic

The Great Colorado Wiknic 2016

Who: All Wikipedia and Wikimedia users and their families and friends are invited.

What: The Great Colorado Wiknic 2016.

When: Sunday afternoon, August 7, 2015, from 12:00 to 4:00 pm MDT.

Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many folks to expect. You can subscribe to our Wikimedia Colorado e-mail list to receive e-mail notice of future Wikimedia Colorado activities.

Sponsor: WikiProject Colorado

Your hosts: Buaidh & BikeSally
(You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.)

Delivered:01:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Seventh Annual Colorado Wiknic

The Great Colorado Wiknic 2017

Who: All Wikipedia and other Wikimedia users and their families and friends are invited.

What: The Seventh Annual Colorado Wiknic.

When: Sunday afternoon, June 25, 2017, from 12:00 to 4:00 pm MDT.

Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.

Sponsors: The Wikimedians of Colorado & WikiProject Colorado

Your hosts: Buaidh & BikeSally
(You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.)
Message sent: 00:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Innisfree Poetry Bookstore and Cafe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Innisfree Poetry Bookstore and Cafe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innisfree Poetry Bookstore and Cafe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Zanhe (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Eighth Annual Colorado Wiknic

Colorado Wiknic 2018

Who: All Wikipedia and Wikimedia users and their families and friends are cordially invited.

What: The Eighth Annual Colorado Wiknic.

When: Sunday afternoon, July 15, 2018, from 12:00 noon to 4:00 pm MDT.

Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.

Sponsors: The Wikimedians of Colorado & WikiProject Colorado

Your hosts: Buaidh & BikeSally
(Delivered: 12:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.)

An invitation to the Ninth Annual Colorado Wiknic

Colorado Wiknic 2019

Who: All Wikipedia users and their families and friends are cordially invited.

What: The Ninth Annual Colorado Wiknic.

When: Sunday afternoon, July 14, 2019, from 12:00 noon to 4:00 pm MDT.

Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.

Sponsors: The Wikimedians of Colorado and WikiProject Colorado

Your hosts: Buaidh & BikeSally We hope to see you.
(You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.)
PS: The Colorado portal has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Colorado.

Sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The future of Portal:Colorado

On June 25, 2019, Portal:Colorado was nominated for deletion. (Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Colorado.) We have upgraded the portal and added several new features including selected Colorado articles, biographies, and images. If you believe the Colorado portal is valuable to Wikipedia, please help us upgrade and maintain the portal. Add your suggestions for improvement to Portal talk:Colorado. You may nominate additions at:

Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 17:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Colorado at 17:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notifications, please remove your username from the mailing list.