User talk:Coffee: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
reply |
→Captain Crimefighter: Exercise in fucking futility |
||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
:::''We only redlink when there is a compelling reason to do so, when we need to remove the information for legal or other damaging reasons.'' - that is, actually, not the case. No matter how much you might wish it to be true, that is not how wikipedia works. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)</small> |
:::''We only redlink when there is a compelling reason to do so, when we need to remove the information for legal or other damaging reasons.'' - that is, actually, not the case. No matter how much you might wish it to be true, that is not how wikipedia works. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)</small> |
||
::::Yes, it the case per [[WP:PRESERVE]]. We do not delete material for which no consensus supports deletion. Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
::::Yes, it the case per [[WP:PRESERVE]]. We do not delete material for which no consensus supports deletion. Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::Actually, nowhere does it say that, and indeed nowhere in that link does it say anything you claim. But you know what? Arguing with you is a fucking fruitless exercise. How about you go respond to your RFCU? There's a fun thought, you actually taking responsibility for your ridiculous behaviour. Hahah. While I'm at it, I'd also like Elijah Wood on a waterbed and a pony and a rocketship! → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#614051;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#614051;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 18:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|||
Revision as of 18:36, 25 February 2010
| This is Coffee's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 |
|
| File:Arkansasstateseal.jpg | This user is a member of WikiProject Arkansas,which seeks to expand information about the state.Please feel free to join us. | 
|
 | |
| Wikipedia ads | file info – #128 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Deletion of article ""Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell"
Dear Coffee. Just for historical interest I would like to know on which Wiki rule you have deleted the above article. Is it mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia why an article is deleted? DParlevliet (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Coffee. It is now a week ago: did your find the reason for deleting the article? There were a lot of "delete" votes, but it was certainly not consensus. Most votes did not agree with the reference or found the article bad, but that is no reason for delete, but for improvement. In the Wikipedia:Deletion policy I did not find a reason for delete. The article had good references and was not disputed for a long time, survived several delete requests, so cannot be that bad. DParlevliet (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
- News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You were the administrator who deleted this page after the AfD was over, and I was wondering if you could unprotect the article as I would like to move my sandbox to main space. As you can see, the article has been expanded and twice as many sources exist now compared to the version during AfD. Thanks. The Prince (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Coffee, do you wish to weigh in at WP:RFUP? If you're open to other admin(s) making a decision, I suppose that would be fine. But it's been there for a day or two now, and most RFPP admins/lurking users are probably waiting for your input. JamieS93❤ 00:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm certainly hanging on, and I'm quite happy to make the call to move it back, just waiting for your view. GedUK 09:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Coffee, it's been five days with no response from you. I understand if you're busy, but it would be really helpful if you could let me know what your thoughts are on the matter. The Prince (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Been extremely busy the past week; any admin may go ahead and review this as they see fit. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Coffee, it's been five days with no response from you. I understand if you're busy, but it would be really helpful if you could let me know what your thoughts are on the matter. The Prince (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm certainly hanging on, and I'm quite happy to make the call to move it back, just waiting for your view. GedUK 09:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Designer barnstar
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
|
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | |
| For your valued contribution to Barber pole which illustrated the optical illusion far better than words could convey. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Stan |
This user certainly was a truth-bearing POV pusher, but I think that a month block was a little on the extreme side for a IP user with no prior block history. Just a thought.
And while I'm here, in case you've never heard this one: When the Navy orders "Secure this building" they turn off the lights and lock the doors. When the Army orders "Secure this building" it means to post an MP and nobody gets a special pass. When the Marines order "Secure this building" they set up a machine gun cross fire, lay down a mortar barrage and call in for an air strike to bomb the hell out of it. When the Air Force orders "Secure this building" they take out a two year lease with an option to buy. Trusilver 23:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Haha love it... As to the block, I personally don't see any good reason to not block someone for that long if they're just badmouthing the project; if they don't have the attitude to contribute here, then they shouldn't be able to. I kinda have a zero tolerance policy for people like that. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
- In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
As this article has a clear merge and redirect location and as there was no consensus to delete it, please undelete it per WP:PRESERVE os that we can merge and redirect accordingly (even the nominator did not oppose a merge). Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I closed it as I saw fit, there was no consensus for a merge as only a few people mentioned it. If you want you can take it to DRV to see if someone else sees a need for a merge. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- We cannot close based on personal opinion, but on the objective read of consensus. Twelve editors commented in that AfD. Four said to keep outright, one to redirect, one to merge, and the nominator also offered a merge as a possibility. No one presented any reason why WP:PRESERVE should not be followed and a redirect with edit history intact not be permitted. This nomination was part of a mass flurry of nominations for that franchise and I and the others who are willing to look for and add sources had to argue while doing so for nearly thirty articles simultaneously. We only redlink when there is a compelling reason to do so, when we need to remove the information for legal or other damaging reasons. This article was not a hoax, not a copy vio, nor libelous. Given that more than half of the participants in the discussion either thought the article should be kept in some capacity, there was no actual consensus for redlinking. Please reconsider as having a redirect with edit history intact will provide convenience for those who come here looking for this information and also allow those of us working on the character aspect of the main article to have a basis from which to work and potentially add references once we get all of these sorted out. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- We only redlink when there is a compelling reason to do so, when we need to remove the information for legal or other damaging reasons. - that is, actually, not the case. No matter how much you might wish it to be true, that is not how wikipedia works. → ROUX ₪ 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it the case per WP:PRESERVE. We do not delete material for which no consensus supports deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, nowhere does it say that, and indeed nowhere in that link does it say anything you claim. But you know what? Arguing with you is a fucking fruitless exercise. How about you go respond to your RFCU? There's a fun thought, you actually taking responsibility for your ridiculous behaviour. Hahah. While I'm at it, I'd also like Elijah Wood on a waterbed and a pony and a rocketship! → ROUX ₪ 18:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it the case per WP:PRESERVE. We do not delete material for which no consensus supports deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- We only redlink when there is a compelling reason to do so, when we need to remove the information for legal or other damaging reasons. - that is, actually, not the case. No matter how much you might wish it to be true, that is not how wikipedia works. → ROUX ₪ 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- We cannot close based on personal opinion, but on the objective read of consensus. Twelve editors commented in that AfD. Four said to keep outright, one to redirect, one to merge, and the nominator also offered a merge as a possibility. No one presented any reason why WP:PRESERVE should not be followed and a redirect with edit history intact not be permitted. This nomination was part of a mass flurry of nominations for that franchise and I and the others who are willing to look for and add sources had to argue while doing so for nearly thirty articles simultaneously. We only redlink when there is a compelling reason to do so, when we need to remove the information for legal or other damaging reasons. This article was not a hoax, not a copy vio, nor libelous. Given that more than half of the participants in the discussion either thought the article should be kept in some capacity, there was no actual consensus for redlinking. Please reconsider as having a redirect with edit history intact will provide convenience for those who come here looking for this information and also allow those of us working on the character aspect of the main article to have a basis from which to work and potentially add references once we get all of these sorted out. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)