User talk:Coffee

User:Chetblong/bar

This is Coffee's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Coffee}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Coffee! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

WikiProject Arkansas

Hey there Coffee, A new discussion has been created at WikiProject Arkansas. Although you aren't very active right now, if you have a chance, please check it out. Hair^Talk 03:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:132.3.45.68

I note that you unblocked User_talk:132.3.45.68, who, as per their pattern, engaged in vandalism yet again which I had to come out of semi-retirement to revert. I think IPs like this should be long-term blocked, even if it's shared with multiple people. Wikipedia may not have the resources to keep this IP unblocked, since it took over 48 hours for me to find and fix their latest vandalism. And yes, the IP may be making valid contributions, but without references, we really don't know if that's just subtle vandalism.

Anyway, I'm back to semi-retirement. I too have a day job. Samboy (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guestbook

Hey Coffee. Hey, I just came to say that I have signed your guestbook; also, would you mind to sign my guestbook? Cheers, CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 10:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant User:Coffee/Autographs CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 10:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Some of your icons at the top of your user talk page are cool. I like them, so I'd like to use some of them, because they are so cool. Also you are a great admin, Coffee. I <3 Coffee, I drink it often Thanks. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 20:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creaky door or fingers (t)rapped?

Thank you for your close and excellent summing up. Apologies for that late "doom laden" comment and the even later "p.s." I was wondering to whom the template sentence "If this page has not been edited for more than an hour, it is usually safe to remove this template" was aimed. It seems to suggest there is some degree of flexibility? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just left that note on your talk page before I saw this... the statement in the tag is directed at other administrators who might want to close it, not individual editors. But no big deal, just wanted to make sure it didn't occur in the future as it's frustrating for closing admins. Thank you for your time. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 11:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your excellent and thoughtful closure rationale of this complex and painful AfD. cyclopia ^speak! 11:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... I do my best. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 11:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's and DRV's

Hello! You've closed out a lot of AfDs this morning, most I agree with. 2 however, am considering DRVing. I've only DRV'd once ever before, so two in one day, from one admin, must be some sort of record. I hope you don't take it personally, it's just how things worked out based on the closes. We are supposed to try and work it out before going to DRV so that is what this is.

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (2nd nomination). This article has sufficient GNG sources. WP:INHERIT doesn't censor WP:GNG, rather it's an essay on arguments for Wikipedian's themselves to avoid making during an AfD eg. "I, Green Cardamom, believe this topic is notable because I, Green Cardamom, believe this topic is famous." .. rather in this case, it is the sources which express he is notable by virtue of newspaper articles about him. INHERIT is often misunderstood this way, it's not meant to censor reliable sources, rather original arguments made by Wikipedians. (Also INHERIT is an essay and not an established guideline. While it is often viewed as a guideline, it is not and probably shouldn't trump the guidelines when there is debate over INHERITs application.)

2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashmi Singh (author) (2nd nomination). Contrary to the closing rationale, this article actually does have new reliable sources which increased notability. The editors voting delete have not substantiated why the sources are unreliable - they just say they are "pr", when in fact the source are used throughout Wikipedia in other articles without controversy (Times of India etc) - and there is no evidence these particular source-articles are PR or unreliable. The closing rationale that the sources are unreliable was never substantiated in the AfD, it appears to be the unanimous decision of the closing admin. I can say this because one (two?) of the new reliable sources was added only yesterday (source dated Nov. 1) and nobody even voted between its addition and the closure of the AfD, much less commented on it being unreliable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but your arguments here against my closing rationales are merely the same arguments you already used for asking to keep the article in the discussions... which were considered in my closing. They are not arguments that prove or show in any way that I closed those discussions against policy. As to the very latest additional source added to Rashmi Singh (author), (which I was not referring to in my closing statement), referencing the story in The New Indian Express: it was only published in the Bhubaneswar circulation and thereby doesn't establish or increase notability on its own. Regardless of the level of circulation of the story, it still not enough for the article to pass the WP:AUTHOR criteria for notability, which was precisely what the argument against the other "reliable" sources was. If you still feel that these discussions were closed against policy then please feel free to take them to DRV. But, from where I'm standing, I don't see much backing for that course of action. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 06:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know The New Indian Express was a local paper, so I could not understand why you were calling it unreliable "by any means". There's another factor I forgot to mention above, one of the sources contains a direct assertion of notability, 'reviewed in Oneindia.in as "distinct from the scores of historical fiction that is being written today,"'. This is new and was not in the original article or older AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual deaths AFD

"Keep?" Maybe "no consensus" if you reject the deletion arguments, but to argue that the "delete" arguments had no foundation in policy whatsoever goes beyond the pale. In many years of trying, the community has never achieved a widely-agreed upon, policy-compliant set of inclusion criteria. WP:NOT#And finally... is an excellent policy-based reason to delete this thing.

Your addition of a clause that attempts to indefinitely protect the article against future deletion attempts is also unreasonable. This AFD should have closed as delete as those arguing for "keep" had no policy-based arguments for retention. Since there's no chance that the article will ever be repaired, it's quite reasonable to assume that the article will be taken back to AFD in the future, and such a move is not inherently disruptive.—Kww(talk) 17:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the same or similar arguments for deletion have been brought up 7 times and multiple administrators have found that they did not have consensus , you have no backing in stating that an 8th chance to rehash them is "quite reasonable". I'd say it's instead only reasonable to assume that the likely result of another additional discussion on the same matter, with the same arguments, will turn out the same way as it has the previous 7 times: with the article not being deleted. And no WP:NOT#And finally... isn't even close to a reason for deletion of this article (the fact that it's a policy doesn't mean that it applies solely because you'd like it to)... especially when you failed to show how it fell into that concept except to say that inclusion criteria for articles such as this has not been successfully drafted before. That has absolutely nothing to do with the article being a terrible idea... and Warden's response to that argument was well warranted. If you disagree to my close then feel free to take it to DRV, but right now it only seems like you're saying that my interpretation of the discussion should have been the same as yours even though you weren't impartial to the content. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 07:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will certainly go to DRV. Giving any weight to an argument by someone that lists the Fortean Times as a reliable source is generally a pretty good sign of a faulty close. I could have accepted a "no consensus": that's well within admin discretion on the close. "Keep" and that final clause went outside of the range.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Thanks for wasting our time again, Kww. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be a waste of time if people didn't insist on treating it like it was a legitimate article, Cyclopia.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: A common mistake in logic is to take in content without context, which seems to be the issue with your understanding here. The very same arguments have been made on both sides time and time again, and the same outcome has happened repeatedly: the article has not been deleted. Furthermore, the vast majority of those outcomes have been regarded as "keep". Once that context is added to the perspective, the overwhelming consensus over time can be truly established. That is what I've done here, and it's justified given the lack of new arguments against the preservation of this list. So, regardless of your cherry picking of the oppositional opinions to your own, it cannot take away the context of this discussion which has taken place over several years. At any rate, you are obviously not impartial/unbiased on whether this article meets community standards or not, and therefore I don't expect your arguments to be based in non-ideological reasoning. With that in mind I highly doubt we'll be able to see eye to eye, so I see no purpose in wasting my time arguing this any further with you here. As I said, I'm completely fine with you taking this to DRV... and I suggest that you do so since you feel that your opinion wasn't given it's fair shake. Just notify me once it's created. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'tis done. I agree that not evaluating context is the problem here: you gave weight to votes from people that show that they have no intention of allowing anything to be deleted without a fight and to !votes from editors such as Colonel Warden that demonstrated during the course of the AFD that they don't understand the concept of reliable sourcing. You listened to "it's fixable" arguments about an article where history has demonstrated that it won't actually be fixed. Your close didn't take that context into account.—Kww(talk) 17:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta agree with Kww here in that you made the wrong call. Blanketly saying "there shouldn't be an 8th AfD" flies in the face of Wikipedia:Consensus can change, which means that policy itself changing need not occur, only interpretation of it. As such, I'd have been fine with "No renomination for at least 2 years", or "No renomination by anybody who participated in this AfD", but a blanket no renomination unless policy changes is going too far. You also went too far in calling it "keep", because far too many (at least half) of the "Keep" votes were not based in policy at all. p b p 21:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for List of unusual deaths

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of unusual deaths. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Kww(talk) 16:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get Wikipedia.....

Wikipedia is not something I use on even an occasional basis. I did; however, use it for one thing - the List of SMS Gateways. It's become essential for me to use for work and I guess I should have made a copy of it, but thinking that "Wikipedia" was like an "Encyclopedia" it never crossed my mind. I'm not here to argue deletion policies and tried to read through all the "talk" and "deletion review" stuff, but, like you, I work... A LOT... (obviously, since it's 1:21 am on a Saturday and I am still at it) and I just don't have that kind of time. I just want to know what I need to do to get a copy of that page. Can you please point me in the right direction? If you could respond to my regular email, stephanie@vip-limo.com, that would be great. VIPLimoSedan (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Stephanie[reply]

The content has been recreated here: [1]. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for John Schlossberg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Schlossberg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom I also want a deletion review of Rashmi Singh(author) as I was its first time creatorAnanyaprasad (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Circumstances (Concept)

Coffee,

Your attitude projected truthfulness of the statement "Arrogance always comes behind Fame". If you understand this I would go further. I was continuously reading Circumstances (Concept) since I follow every statement of Bhagvad Gita as a word of God. Deletion of that article made me searched the culprit and unfortunately you are the one.

Did you get any award for its deletion or you think that your clean up act was more important than discliplined statements of Lord Krishna?

A humble request: Can you restore it?.....please and I would mark some references to it bur for God's sake advise others as well not to go for that act.

Regards, Manoj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.6.228 (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bay State Conference

I noted that you deleted the article Bay State Conference on notability grounds - fair enough. You may not be aware that there was also a category:

Category:Bay State Conference

Thanks (no reply necessary), Itc editor2 (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of SMS gateways

Disappointed that you deleted the List of SMS gateways. I suspect a lot of people are frantically searching for new compilations right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.215.214 (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously sucks that you deleted the sms gateways list. Why did you do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.231.146 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content has been recreated here: [2] — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilan Shiloah closure

I'm curious about your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilan Shiloah. I'm not sure that I feel passionately enough about the topic to open a DRV, to be honest, but I am curious about how you interpreted consensus to reach your closure. It's certainly true that the individual in question has quite a few raw hits in the media sources, but I remain unconvinced they rise to the level of notability. The interviews Glovex104 added are, by the nature of interviews, not independent sources, and the CEO position is not that of the huge multinational Interpublic Group of Companies, nor the subsidiary advertising network McCann Erickson, but its regional division in Israel; I'm not sure that's a notability claim under current policy, especially not for the individual (but possibly for the corporate subsidiary). And I'm certainly not sure there was consensus for an explicit keep, even considering those sources. If nothing else, I try to understand why AFDs I participate in close the way they do -- even, or especially, when they close against my opinion -- so I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly expound upon my reasoning... but I'm about to get some tasty lunch, so it will be a while before I fully reply. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. Tasty lunches are always excellent ideas. In fact, I believe I'll do so myself as well! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I'll point to is this: WP:SUPPORT to explain why it doesn't matter how many people asked for it's deletion or preservation. I'm not saying your opinion on the AFD didn't have any validation (as it did originally)... but that instead the others, after providing sources, made a stronger argument for its inclusion. That argument was based in the article passing WP:GNG, specifically the area of the policy to read is WP:NRV as that lays out in a detailed fashion why this article (now) meets the policy. The scalability of the business world doesn't really have an effect on notability as we are a worldwide encyclopedia. If you were to look at his role from the perspective you outlined above, it could indeed appear nonnotable. But, when viewed as being the CEO over the largest advertising firm in Israel, that does create some form of inherent notability on its own, although not enough to pass GNG without sourcing proving that there had been significant coverage of him in these types of roles (through interviews and other news articles, as there is no stipulation against interviews in WP:RS). As that sourcing has now been established, it then is able to pass WP:GNG and therefore is not harming the encyclopedia by its existence. And it is not harming the person it is about as long as it remains properly sourced. I hope that clears it up a bit more for you! — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]