User talk:Coffee

This user is more awesome than you.

Flashbacks

Someone pinged me off-site to make me aware of the ANI thread. Oh, the memories. Same players, same complaints, same defenses. It's like going back to high school and oddly finding your old classmates are still there, sticking with the same cliques, fighting the same rivals, and all members of the same clubs. Where's the evolution? I expected there to have been grand improvements to the site, its policies, and the community after so many years. So sad to see that it hasn't changed. Lara 22:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Lara: Indeed... it is very disheartening to say the least. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Lara: PS see this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That WP has a reputation as being hostile toward female editors isn't enough. Being hostile toward servicemembers and veterans would do wonders for the project in the public's eyes. I look forward to reading the responses that comment garners. Lara 22:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so glad to see that stupidity got shot down immediately and resoundingly. Lara 22:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Lara: s/clicks/cliques/  :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I just learned that there's also claque. How neat!

I don't know what you're talking about. >_> Also: Oh, how I have missed you! Indubitably(Lara) 21:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW

I can't bring myself to contribute to the monstrous pile-on at ANI, but I think this is worth noting. I'm not as concerned as others about Eric's block. It was, if nothing else, a dumb thing to say. In unblocking Rationalobserver, I personally think you made a mistake, but I'm not terribly concerned that you didn't seek permission first. I'll probably reblock her myself if she doesn't find a new interest to focus on soon (I assume you saw she posted about this at ANI after promising you she'd move on). Giano's a big boy too; if you can handle the heat, he can handle the block. In general, all of these people (and you, and I guess me) are partially playing Wikipedia The Game, and I don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Even reviewing an unblock request by someone you blocked is suboptimal, but not a crisis, and it was a long time ago. I realize that it feel like the hyenas are circling. I hope you're open to criticism anyway.

But anyway, what has bothered me for a couple of days, and now bothers me even more after some of your responses to this dust-up, is your aggressive over-the-top warning at User talk:SeraV. That was not a momentary error; that was evidence of an attitude that I think is corrosive, and is incompatible with adminship. I think it's evidence you may have come back here not only a little rusty (which is ok), but with the wrong attitude. You are not a hall monitor, or anyone's boss, and your primary mission is not to try to intimidate people with less experience than yourself into behaving themselves. I'm not inside your mind, but that is really, really how you're coming across.

If your primary concern is admin backlogs, please focus on them. A break from the blocking button isn't a bad idea, but more importantly, a return to a less imperial attitude is the most important change you could make. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just chiming in here to say that I looked at this discussion and I strongly agree with Floquenbeam. That level of warning is reserved for edits that imperil the encyclopedia, not for a simple revert. Bad show. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

MZMcBride, Floquenbeam's comments I find to be in order... but you chiming in I find simply amusing. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that was quite a long time ago! It's an interesting example to point to as that revert was ultimately upheld at DRV, the discussion was re-opened, and the article was deleted, not kept. In any case, I'd say that deletion discussions aren't quite the same as ITN discussions, context is key (Chillum isn't the same person as SeraV and the surrounding actions aren't really comparable), and, y'know, I'm no longer an admin, so I'm not sure you want to be emulating me. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete AfD relisting

Good morning! A few days ago you've {{relist}}'ed a few AfDs without moving them from the original day's log to the relisting day's log... as a result the bot thought they were overdue and I closed them prematurely :\. See User talk:Papaursa for the debate arising from my mistake. Deryck C. 09:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Deryck Chan: I've realized that IE 11 does not work well with my relisting script... bah! Damn you Microsoft. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

An editor (in part because they disagree with my decision) said that either I reopen it or they will DRV. What are your thoughts? (There is a policy premise to be tested - to what extent is the closing admin allowed to gauge the strength of the argument by looking at the parts of the article and external sources which the debate has referred to?) Deryck C. 08:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Deryck Chan: Per, WP:RELIST "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.", so your closes are completely allowed within policy... as long as you believe that there were policy backed arguments that verify your close is within the predetermined consensus made by the community. (AFDs are not votes, Papaursa). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

BAO Publishing

I'm asking if I can recreate the page. this comic publisher has already a page on italian wiki , sells 200.000 copies every year and has published authors such as Scott McCloud, Frank Miller and Alan Moore. thank you...

Melaen: Yes, as long as a claim of notability is established in the article, I see no issues with you re-creating it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Alberto Moreno (footballer)

Please take a look at this, this and this. All these three sources (the first and the last 100% reliable) says he's a left back. The IP user (who has six mere edits – I'm not trying to use this in my turn) only provided two links that were already deemed as not reliable enough here already.

Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 05:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

MYS77: Have you tried to actually discuss this with the IP? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I did in the edit summaries, where I mentioned the Liverpool official web. Firstly, I asked him for reliable sources, and he only provided some unreliable ones. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 06:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

MYS77: Per WP:REVTALK, "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself." — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Already moved it to the talk page. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 06:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

MYS77: Thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Simon.terry

Hi Coffee, I noticed you left a warning on User talk:Simon.terry relating to Unilad. It would seem this user is already evading a block based on the unblock request at User talk:Uniladmag. The account was created after Uniladmag was reblocked. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Bellerophon: I've blocked the user in question, thanks for the heads up. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

deletion

Hope your doing well Coffe. My page was deleted after I posted it on Twitter. If we arent allowed to tell people about the posting then how do they find out? Are they supposed to happen to find your page via google & internet searches? Help me to better understand this. I am a public figure & I've been trying to find out how to post up a Wikipedia page for years. They are always getting deleted. I am listed in the top 1% percentile of all social media users & Mark Z. owner & founder of Facebook even follows me but I can't seem to grasp Wiki! Please help & I thank you for your time & commitment to this very informational platform!OGMackDrama (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC) 'OG Mack Drama'

OGMackDrama: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a host for self-promotion. Please see the relevant policies at WP:SELFPROMOTE and WP:NOTPROMOTION. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the IP on my talk page. I was also looking into the contrib history for the /22 range to see if a range block looked safe, and realized you had already gotten there and blocked them - so thanks for that too! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that AIV report

Thanks for taking care of 86.174.161.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), a vandal you blocked. I realized later on that I probably should have included a few representative diffs in the AIV report, as some of the vandalism was a bit subtle and other edits looked helpful on the surface. I'm glad that you didn't retire. Your efforts at clearing time-consuming backlogs is deeply appreciated. I remember you've closed a number of really contentious AfDs that nobody else would touch, even though you sometimes close them with The Wrong Result (kind of like m:The Wrong Version, I suppose). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for doing the work for DYK. It made me feel good that my article was noticed and then promoted, which happened because people like you do the work behind the scene. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Hi. I've done nothing on this - dealing with life. Have you had any more thoughts on the concerns raised - especially regarding your use of the block button? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not particularly more than I laid out there so far, and at the ANI thread. Once your able to lay out any other concerns you have though I'll be happy to answer them there. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review on Robert Young

The Deletion Review page says to discuss this with the closing administrator before posting a review challenge, and that seemed like a good idea. All you said in the closing statement at Robert Young's deletion discussion was "The result was redirect to Gerontology Research Group." Nothing else. We had 13 posts arguing for keeping and 13 posts arguing for deletion. Usually at wikipedia when that happens I see articles kept erring on the side of inclusion so it's a head scratcher for me, but that's a minor issue on the closing. Only 5 editors wanted a redirect yet that's what was chosen by you with no explanation as to why you went with 5 out of 31 editor opinions. We are going to need a detailed credible reason as to why you decided with such a tiny minority. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck(click): AFDs are not votes, they are closed based upon the best policy backed arguments made in the discussion. However, since you have stated that you find this close contentious, I've decided to relist the debate for 7 more days so that a clearer consensus can be shown. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I do understand they aren't votes. All I'm saying is that if a closer is going to go with what 5 out of 31 editors want, then it is the closer's responsibility to explain in great detail why those 16% had better reasoning than the other 84%. I didn't see that and that's what concerned me most. I think I saw a close with an administrator going with 2 out of 30 before... it was challenged and the admin was vindicated, but he had given a very long and detailed closing argument. Thanks for re-opening but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if all the percentages stayed the same and it still winds up being a stew for whatever closer gets the thankless job next go-around. Again thanks for the effort. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert Cumberford DYI

The seven day "since creation" window did not expire until 13:47:26 on March 5th, and this nom was made on March 5th at 7:04. Either way, unlike some "three paragraph" articles, this is a thorough, interesting and meritorious article that may be worth special papal dispensation. 842U (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

842U: Correct, you are. Approved the nom, I have. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thx! 842U (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Although, shouldn't the reviewer itemize the "required criteria" that the article has been reviewed for, e.g., length, interesting hook, etc.? 842U (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

842U: Some do... but I prefer to not. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The nomination is languishing, and I think it's because of your slightly unorthodox review formatting. If you concur, and that's not entirely clear, could please add a line at the end of the nomination that shows that the article is ready to go, with the correct symbol a the front of the edit? Something like the sentence below. Thanks. 842U (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is good to go.

842U: There are currently 51 verified hooks that haven't been promoted that are languishing at the moment... (including one of my own). It's due to the pace of the prep area promoters, not necessarily anything else. Sadly, I have no way of making the editors who do the prep promotions do them faster. I can ping @BlueMoonset: though and perhaps he'll be kind enough to throw yours into the next prep area. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If you would, please add this to the nom:

The article is good to go.

842U (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

842U:  Done ... I'll ping @Allen3: as well and perhaps he'll kindly expedite adding Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Cumberford to the prep area for you. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please show a little patience, your nomination is not "languishing". There are a number of nominations that have been waiting in the queue longer than your nomination. Three of those nominations that were reviewed and approved before your nomination was submitted are mine. It might take a few more days, but your nomination will be promoted in due time. --Allen3 ^talk 22:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Abdullah Al Wasif

I was hoping you could unblock Abdullah Al Wasif (talk · contribs) because he was one of my close friends and since he was blocked he started crying. He was very happy being a wikipedian and used to always sit and edit articles.. So if you could please..unblock him Cknbhoot (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Your "friend" left an unblock request as per Wikipedia guidelines. What you are doing is called meat-puppetry or given your account history WP:SOCKPUPPETRY/WP:BLOCKEVASION. While your "friend" has been unblocked, in the future tell him/her to simply use the unblock template as this can result in worse. Hope he keeps his nose clean now. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

not very good judgment

You aren't doing a good job as an admin. With the Sound of Music, Betty Logan is very aggressive. She/he has done this recently with another editor. She doesn't discuss much or at all. She/he wants a sanitized article.

I am for neutrality, not 100% positive and a whitewash but not slamming the article's subject either.

In contrast, Betty Logan is always a revert, never a suggestion for compromise or re-write. She/he should be sanctioned or, at least, you should put the same warning to gave to me to her/him. She/he also makes false accusations like 3RR and when another user (Jetstreamer), whom I don't have any contact except he OPPOSES me in one AFD, comes to my defense.

Bottom line: be a neutral administrator and do not take Betty Logan's side, particularly since she/he is aggressive and hostile. Being neutral and encouraging discussion makes WP better. I have tried to discuss things and modified my edits, never reinserting the same thing, like Betty Logan removes stuff without alternative suggestions. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message but please don't revert and put it back. I would like to keep my page mostly clear. I have even removed positive stuff from my talk page. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You see, I discuss things with you nicely. I do not yell at you or threaten you by saying you are reverting my user talk page. Everyone should be nice in WP. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wowee Zowee public: Please consider taking this to WP:EWN. I am not taking sides here, I am only warning you that as you've been engaged in edit warring that you are close to being blocked (see WP:3RR). I'm going to also fully protect the page for now, as it seems the discussion piece isn't working currently. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It would seem User:MelanieN beat me to the punch. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad you agree, Coffee. I saw that you had viewed the RFPP request and suggested WP:EW, which was a good idea, but in this case it only seems to have escalated the personal attacks and digging in of positions. I use full protection occasionally in this kind of situation, in the hope that it will prevent any need to issue blocks, but it may not be successful in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, I just had to hand out a block... some people just refuse to listen to simple instructions. Either way, the page being protected was still a good call. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I had a feeling that was going to be the outcome no matter what. Thanks for trying; some people just don't hear. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Somebody at my talk page suggested that since the user is blocked for longer than the page protection lasts, I could probably lift the page protection. What do you think of that idea? --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN: Indeed... I think that sounds fairly logical. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In case you didn't watchlist the page

I've started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#AbusedCadet. As the most recent blocking admin, I thought you might want to chime in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

IP's keeps vandalizing my page

Hi. You protected Rula Jebreal and blocked two who violated the rules there. I think they are back: Special:Contributions/69.146.35.60 and Special:Contributions/1.175.220.149. They are adding that to my talk page. Could you protect it for a while? Thanks. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you hide their edits on my talk page too (as done on the other attacks)? --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

IRISZOOM:  Done — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK prep to queue promotions redux

Coffee, I was wondering whether you could give the completed prep sets more time in prep before you promote them to queues.

One of the key steps in the DYK process is when an assembled prep is scrutinized by experienced users, who recheck the hooks, improve the grammar, tighten them of unnecessary words, and so on. It helps to have a number of hours—up to 12—for such people to have a chance to see the prep, look at the hooks, and add non-breaking spaces and other useful formatting. Many mistakes have been found this way. Since most of the checkers are not administrators, they can't touch the hooks once they've been promoted to the queues, and any fixes need to be requested on the DYK talk page rather than done simply and directly. (There's also a tacit assumption that a queue has gone through this checking process, which lately hasn't been the case.)

Thanks for making sure we have enough queues filled to avoid promotion issues. It really helps. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: Sure thing, as long as enough queues are filled I'll be sure to give the prep areas more time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

40 Point Plan

I objected to the nomination. I added sources which I think established WP:GNG. Until another editor removed a few, there were 25 unique references. Even as of last night there were 20. There at least should have been some discussion. This is not a proper deletion. If there is a challenge, as I did, there should be at least an AfD, not a rush to unilateral judgement. Trackinfo (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Trackinfo: I've restored the page as you have now formally contested the proposed deletion (PROD). For future reference, if you believe an article with a PROD template on it should be kept, please remove the PROD template from the article with an edit summary giving the explanation. That will prevent something like this from happening in the future. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring. I had removed the PROD per procedure and it was restored by another editor--you can see the beginning of an edit war over procedure. Obviously that editor wishes to get their brownie points for deleting an article. So let them do it the old fashioned way, rather than in the rush to judgement. Trackinfo (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK queues

Hi, I notice that you've been promoting the prep sets to queues quite soon after they are completed. This doesn't give me or others a chance to look at the hooks or make small editing tweaks. Would it be possible to wait at least a few hours before promoting the preps? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yoninah: BlueMoonset brought this to my attention just a few hours ago (see the above thread). Needless to say, I will most certainly wait to promote the prep areas to the queue as long as there are enough queues filled to prevent a backlog. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, if there are any issues that you see with the current queues, just let me know and I'll make the appropriate fixes. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. (Sorry, I didn't read your talk page first.) Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Some fish for your collection

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Next time you want to use the old version of an ITN blurb, don't revert to an old version of the ITN template. Bencherlite^Talk 01:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Bencherlite: I have literally no idea how I did that... must have edited from an older version somehow when I replaced the blurb. But, trout indeed haha. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What was rather amusing was that "Espresso Addict" was tidying up after "Coffee" - too many caffeine-related pseudonyms playing with the main page, or too few? Bencher-latte^Talk 02:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Haha, clearly we need a barista servicing the main page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, I can only offer my services as a barrister... Bencherlite^Talk 02:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

gautham kashyap

hi,

please let me know the problem with the gautham kashyap page and why its got deleted

regards, krishna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cckkrishna (talk • contribs) 02:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Cckkrishna: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gautham Kashyap for further information. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting Atletico Madrid page

Hi,

Thank you for this, as some users tried to alter correct information, even after we went in a dispute under WP. And they got the answers. You can have a look from the edit history of Atléti's page. Regards 5.41.217.3 (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Philadelphia Fire Department

Good morning (at least it is morning where I am). Just wanted to take a moment to say thank you for protecting Philadelphia Fire Department. I also wanted to see if you had any advice. Though I have been here for a couple of years, I still consider myself relatively new to Wikipedia. I posted a WP:RFC on the Philadelphia Fire Department talk page that seems to have ignited a bit of a flame war. Would love any advice you could share. Once again, thank you for your time. Wishing you well, --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Zackmann08: You're doing the right thing by handling a content dispute with an RFC. I've left a note on the talk page as well, and I've sorted the RFC for you. If issues continue to arise on the article (after the protection expires) please inform me and I'll handle the situation at that point in time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Really do appreciate your assistance. Happy friday! --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Josh Stewart

You protected a few days/weeks ago, however it may need reprotecting as the Masketta Man/Barsard war is continuing. Otherwise some sort of proper decision to sort out this would be in order. —George8211 / T 19:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

George8211: Thanks for the heads up... I've adding pending changes protection to the article for 1 month. If the disruption continues after that expires, feel free to let me know and I'll take care of it immediately. Cheers, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

STOP

Stop hounding me.

Stop falsely accusing me. I am not doing the same thing. In fact, I have let Bede and Betty win by not addressing what they don't like (about that director refusing). Instead, I have started a very positive, let's get the article so good it's a featured article. All my changes are non-controversial or should be. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wowee Zowee public: No, you are clearly engaged in edit warring again. Chillum and I have both talked to you about this, and you still seem to not be able to comprehend the impact of your disruption. I'm asking you to simply not edit the article unless you have WP:CONSENSUS for the edits. Right now you don't, and you're well aware of that fact. Please abide by my request, and civilly discuss this matter on the talk page of the article. - Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and right now you're not being very collaborative. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked Village Pump on how to do thing and have stopped editing the article pending a re-evaluation. See so stop hounding me and you will find that I am very reasonable. ...and take the advice on the thread below, that is, relax and have a cup of coffee, don't fight. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I hear you like...

...coffee. :-) ResMar 19:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

ResMar has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Carlos Castaneda.

In your edit summary for temporary protection, you have mentioned "disruption" and "vandalism", yet a more-than-cursory examination is justified here, in my opinion. Most (if not all) of the suspect (to you) edits have followed Wiki rules closely and all reasons for such edits have been posted on the relevant Talk page for discussion, before editing.

It is also to be noted that the editor who requested the protection (user 'Elvey') has a history of being blocked by Wikipedia for disruptive and aggressive deletions and reversions.

Could you please expound upon your reasons for temporarily protecting the Carlos Castaneda page, as requested by the user 'Elvey'? 80.44.192.160 (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Although I do not agree with you on page protecting the Sound of Music, unlike your previous (not anymore) of keeping re-pasting things on my user talk page, I can sort of see your logic with page protection. You see, I do not oppose you, I only oppose actions when I think they are not right. By using your logic and working with you, I recommend that you extend the full page protection until March 25, or 5 days longer. Thank you.

If you wish to respond to this request, you may do so on my talk page or here, whichever you prefer. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Peppered Moth

Hi. How comes I haven't had a DYK left on my talk for this? The creator got one left on his talk 25 minutes ago, but I haven't had anything. I have always received a DYK on my talk for DYK's that I have only nominated and not work on before.  — ₳aron 00:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999 I assume it's a bot error... I'll give you one though manually. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay cool thanks :)  — ₳aron 00:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

F5

When deleting files per WP:CSD#F5, you need to check whether the file has been added to an article after the file was tagged and in that case decline the deletion. It seems that you have just deleted a large number of files per WP:CSD#F5 although the files in fact were used in articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Stefan2: I did a linking check using one of my scripts prior to deleting them... and I didn't see any of them being used. If there were any particular errors please point me to them and I'll undelete the files. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

File:International Tamizhan.jpg

File:Chase a Crooked Shadow.jpg

File:Avengers Age of Ultron.jpg

Please restore them. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• From what I noticed when I went through my watchlist, all of the files you deleted per WP:CSD#F5 were in fact in use somewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Great... so the script failed entirely. Let me see if I can rectify this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • There is a bot, User:ImageRemovalBot, which removes deleted files from articles. If it takes too long, remember to check the bot's contributions so that you can revert the bot wherever necessary. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, it seems that the files were in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old instead of Category:All orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files. The former category contains files which are typically in use but which contain old revisions which are unfree. You should only delete the old revisions of those files, not the current revision. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Aaaaaand, I'm an idiot. Still, my one script should've picked up if they were linked or not, I'll have to take a look at that later. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Stefan2, Kailash29792: All files have been manually undeleted. Thanks for notifying me of this error. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete the images?

"Mental health issues" your talk page reads; is that why you mercilessly deleted four fair-use images? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Kailash29792: I'll restore the above images as it appears the script may have failed on a few images... but, that comment was uncalled for. You could have just kindly asked that they be undeleted. Mistakes happen. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. I belatedly realised the cause. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion mistake?

I don't think File:My Teen Romantic Comedy SNAFU Blu-ray Cover.png was tagged for deletion since it was in use over on this page. Unless I made a mistake with the wrong tag to delete the previous versions instead. Can you confirm this? —KirtZ^Message 13:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

File:DBZ THE MOVIE NO. 14.png

Hello, I've noticed that you've deleted the cover image for Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods without any reason given. Can you elaborate? Kitano-san (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Blatant misuse of powers

On no grounds should those UFC posters have been deleted. You are blatantly misusing your powers. Bring them back or you will be reported. WWE Batman131 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Could everyone please calm down a bit... let me check what happened with my script. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Cyclone Pam

Hi again. Do I get credit on my talk page for providing/contributing the ITN hook for Cyclone Pam? I've never posted at ITN before.  — ₳aron 13:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained summary deletions with NO prior notice

You have just gone and summarily deleted the following fair use images, with NO prior notification, NO discussion and, since all these images are in use in at least one article, for NO APPARENT REASON. From my watchlist:
(Deletion log); 15:29 . . Coffee (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Miltary Merit Medal (South Africa).jpg ‎(G8: Redirect to deleted page "File:Military Merit Medal (South Africa).jpg" (TW))
(Deletion log); 15:29 . . Coffee (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Pro Patria Medal, 1st version.jpg ‎(CSD F5 (TW))
(Deletion log); 15:29 . . Coffee (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Military Merit Medal (South Africa).jpg ‎(CSD F5 (TW))
(Deletion log); 15:28 . . Coffee (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Jack Hindon Medal.jpg ‎(CSD F5 (TW))
(Deletion log); 15:28 . . Coffee (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Faithful Service Medal, Silver.jpg ‎(CSD F5 (TW))
(Deletion log); 15:28 . . Coffee (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Faithful Service Medal, Bronze.jpg ‎(CSD F5 (TW))
(Deletion log); 15:28 . . Coffee (talk | contribs) deleted page File:De Wet Decoration 30 years clasp.jpg ‎(CSD F5 (TW))
Either motivate your vandalism or revert these deletions pronto. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

André Kritzinger: Did you bother to read the page notice before you posted on my talk page? All of those files have been undeleted. It was a scripting/user error. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not notice it. Thanks for reverting. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You missed one, Coffee: File:Military Merit Medal (South Africa).jpg. (There's one more, but not worth repairing since it's just a redirect from a spelling error.) -- André Kritzinger (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

André Kritzinger: Fixed! Thanks for the heads up. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Look at you

Those other two, Betty Logan and Bede, particularly Betty, is so aggressive by successfully getting you to block me. Betty even lied about 3RR, according to Jetstreamer, an independent observer at the 3RR board.

Now look at this. Betty doesn't discuss things on the talk page. Furthermore, it is ME, that points out errors in Wikipedia, such as here... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APorto-Novo&diff=651362980&oldid=505157407

Bottom line. Please do not be harsh on me. Know that I am for a better Wikipedia, not to own articles, like Betty.

Have you fixed a factual error in Wikipedia recently? If not, join me and fix errors and make Wikipedia better! Wowee Zowee public (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Um, what? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sunrise Senior Living

I noticed that you deleted Sunrise Senior Living and then removed links to it. As a copyright violation, it was totally inappropriate to remove any links. What happens when a new version appears without violating G12? When articles are deleted, care must the taken in determining which if any links should be removed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Vegaswikian: It's usually standard practice to unlink deleted articles. As per WP:REDDEAL: "The link is broken and no longer leads to an article (perhaps because the underlying article was deleted). In such a case, the link usually needs to be removed or renamed to point to an existing article." — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no. Wikipedia:Red link and even WP:REDDEAL allow for articles that should exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I just directly quoted the guideline that allowed those edits, that's all the time I'm wasting on this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

San Salvatore in Lauro

Hallo, can you explain what is going to happen now here? I removed a sentence which is apparently senseless (at least for me as Roman and passionate about Rome) and unsourced, asking for a reliable source. An anonymous ip reverted my edits, and ignored my thread on the talk page. I ask semiprotection, and now the article is frozen with the contested information in it. This would be ok if the ip were willing to discuss, but he is clearly happy with this situation, and the article will remain with the false info there forever. This in IT is called a deadlock... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Alex2006: As it is an edit war, the page had to be fully protected per our policies. It is important to note that the protection is not an endorsement of the current revision. I would recommend going to WP:DRN if the edit warring continues, after the page protection expires... or if you are unable to get the IP to discuss their changes. You may also report the user to the edit warring noticeboard. If none of these avenues are able to get the IP to collaborate instead of edit war, they will likely be blocked. Just make sure that you do not fall into their hole and break WP:3RR, once the page protection expires. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not a nice situation, since this guy keeps reverting without a comment...Don`t worry, I am not going to edit war, my reverts were aimed to bring the ip to the talk page too. OK, after Tuesday I will go to some noticeboard, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Alex2006: If the noticeboards aren't helpful you can always just come back to me as well. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! My faith in bureaucracy is limited anyway :-) Alex2006 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete File:Weekend Pass.jpg??

Hi there - I'm sure you have a reason and would like to know why it was deleted. File:Weekend Pass.jpg Donmike10 (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Donmike10: It was a part of a larger deletion script error... I've undeleted it now as I have the rest (somehow I missed that one). Thanks for the heads up! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy

Requesting permission for another AfD, this version in particular has mainstream established sources including 6 additional citations I've added including a documentary on the subject. Upon reviewing the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly, I found DGG's argument to be particularly compelling. There was a clear lack of consensus in this debate and considering this to be a drain on our editors' time is seemingly unwarranted. If you disagree, I was hoping for an in detailed breakdown of the issues with in the article and what policy this material violates on our established guidelines. Thanks! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Valoem As much as it truly pains me to discuss these articles again... I would be willing to have a new AFD opened on the sandboxed version... If, another uninvolved admin thinks it's a good idea. So, I'll ping @Drmies: a fellow admin whose judgement I trust fully. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!, I've also asked DGG on his opinion, hope that is okay as well. I understand the rational behind the close, but felt that a NC would have been less controversial. Just a side question, did you have any issues with the sources provided in Tokyogirl's version and improvements that could be made? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

To keep myself as uninvolved as possible, I don't try to make opinions on articles that I make closes on - separate from community consensus. It's just a principle of mine that allows me to be a facilitator of community consensus instead of a supervoter, if you will. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Understandable, also Drmies was heavily involved just so you know. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh... well I still trust her judgement. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Eh, what was I involved in? Coffee, why do I need pinging? (I need coffee, I know that.) And why are we discussing an AfD on a person when it's the recreation of an article on a subject is at stake? And why is it such a big deal? I don't know what you're looking for, Valoem. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to fully explain what happened... so hopefully Valoem knows the entire backstory. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I am requesting permission to have the Involuntary celibacy article userfied to my page including the talk page given the fact that I intend to restore the article for another round at AfD. Given the history of the article I understand the contention behind this, however in light of new sources provided in Tokyogirl's version, I feel that it strongly passes guidelines provided by WP:GNG and WP:RS. Coffee was uncomfortable giving me permission alone, and wanted a second opinion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well, what can I say. Sure, I am somewhat familiar with some of the backstory (sorry, Coffee, I can't stand that term!), but I wonder if my supposed "involvement" is to be seen as "so involved that old Drmies can't take uninvolved administrative action", since that would be news to me. Anyway, Valoem, I certainly don't approve of this modern habit of throwing adverbs at verbs ("strongly passes"), but I have no inherent objection to this going back in mainspace. As long as you're not a sock of ChildofMidnight, of course. Anyway, if it's OK with Coffee it's OK with me. And while we're namechecking--I looked at that argument by DGG in the AfD, and found it uncharacteristically weak. But anyway. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciated it, Coffee, if you could please userfy the full history of involuntary celibacy plus talk page that would be great! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I also get the full history and talk for Denise Donnelly, might be some relevant information. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: or Coffee can someone userfy Involuntary celibacy and Denise Donnelly (plus talk pages please) I am going to paste Tokyogirl's version on top. DGG has an enlightening response posted on his talk page, specifically dealing how we handle non-standard on this encyclopedia, if anyone was interested. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Valoem: They've been restored and moved to User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy and User:Valoem/Denise Donnelly, please note that an AFD will have to be opened to get either of these articles back into the mainspace. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

How are we going to AfD this without it going to main space, DRV seems to be the only way, but then it has to go through another AfD regardless. I am looking for maximum input from all established editors. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Valoem: I suggest opening an WP:RFC with the same conditions of an AFD applied to it. DRV would not be appropriate here as that route was already attempted, and we're not talking about the previous close. We're talking about a re-written article trying to get to the mainspace. The RFC could be linked at the village pump, ANI, AN, and any other high visibility areas that the community sees fit (we can even add the RFC to the AFD log page). - That IMHO would be the best way to go here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The incel/loveshyness POV-pushing never ends, does it? I'll AfD a return of this nonsense in a heartbeat, and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one to want to do so. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I know you don't like it, but sources are there it is notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I certainly think that after what happened asking two admins - really nice ones, of course, sure, to recreate an article that was now gone trough a long process of debate - I doubt that it is correct. Hafspajen (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen, I have faith that if this was found to be shit the first time around, it will still be shit. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks for the vote of confidence, its not shit and never was that's where you and I disagree. We have a policy that nothing here is final. The topic should have never been deleted it was always fixable. The quest to expand this encyclopedia and change consensus based on established guidelines has never been easy, but someone must try. I wish often it wasn't me, but the winds have a mind of their own. With that said please read the version I am requesting to the main space. It passes every guideline we have established and a thousand WP:IDONTLIKEITs has no right to change that. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, put "wind" and "shit" together and you get an invocation of IDONTLIKEIT. First, that your opponents "just don't like it" violates AGF; if that's all it was, you should have asked for a Deletion Review. Second, invoking IDONTLIKEIT (meaning "you don't like it") it is not unlike farting in a closed room and blaming the person next to you, or the dog. It works both ways, but I have found, enriched by many years in the fart room of ANI and other places, that he who smelt it dealt it. Third, I didn't say it was shit--the careful reader will not my careful hypothetical phrasing. Coffee, I apologize for finding the lower layer in this conversation, but I am grateful that you are hosting it, not me. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That condition might have a name, y'know..."involuntary discussion-aversion" ? Doesn't really roll off the tongue though. Btw, can you put a set of eyes on User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy#Canvassing and tell me if I'm nuts? Isn't only notifying people who agreed with you in past XfDs/DRVs kinda straight-up canvassing? Tarc (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

AfD Historici.nl

Do you reckon that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historici.nl can be closed now? I don't see any new information or new opinions and the discussion is starting to repeat itself. – Editør (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Spiral dynamics

Yes please ! Two milk, no suger. Weak coffee please, if your machine can do that. Cappucino ? Dear Coffee,

i am interested in Spiral dynamics because a friend of mine is promoting it for us to use it in Partij voor Mens en Spirit / Human Spirit Party the Netherlands www.mensenspirit.nl

I was not liking it very much, and was greatly enjoying the Englishlanguage wikipedia article on it. The Englishlanguage wikipedia is almost so much better than the Dutchlanguage wiki. I am assuming this is due to the NUMBER of editors working on it, and not their quality.

As I do not have clue about S.D. ... would you perhaps be willing to include some nice sentences from the old article into the new one I created ? It is a long time ago i saw the article, and it might have been promotional in style. The subject is, however, notable, even though i do not agree with it. I feel uncomfortable with the strong labeling occurring in this S.D. model.

cheers, good night of good morning if you are in Europa.

Micky

--Mick2 (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Mick, I don't approve of weak coffee with sugar, but this is Coffee's place, not mine. I don't see anything worth saving in that article, sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

JNetDirect Incorporated deletion

Hi!

Yesterday, you deleted the page for "JNetDirect Incorporated" and I wish that you would review again and reconsider. Lack of notability and "references are all press releases" were comments on the deletion notice discussion. References were not press releases. References were independent articles from third party publications. I took care of not using references that were publications that simply re-published press releases. The references used were all from independent publications.

If you can reconsider, it would be greatly appreciated.

FC890 (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for removing some of the harassment of Victoria Nuland, which evidently is trying to punish her for her high-profile activity in the European subcontinent of Asia, e.g., supporting Ukraine.

It would be great if you could remove the unsourced naming of her and Robert Kagan's (apparently minor) children (e.g., [1]), often by the same editors who keep labeling them Jews/neoconservatives. I have seen complaints dating back from 2008 about these issues.

I really appreciate your work. I hope that those criticizing you for some recent decisions will remember how important your use of the tools is for removing harassment from BLPs. Dear0Dear 18:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear ODear ODear:  Done — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Harassment of Robert Kagan

It is late and I blended some of the categories together,i'm afraid. I just started on the BLP violations in the edit history. There are many more recent violations. Dear0Dear 21:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted all the revs I saw to be serious BLP violations. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ginsberg page

Hi, I request that the Allen Ginsberg page be restored to its pre-edit warring version, that is: 01:59, 14 March 2015‎ Modernist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,564 bytes) (-950)‎ . . (Undid revision 651272134 by 94.197.118.104 (talk)discuss and gain consensus; and stop edit warring) Totorotroll (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)