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 .

Deletion review for involuntary celibacy

Hello, I am raising an objection to your decision in the recent AfD for involuntary celibacy. According to the page describing deletion reviews, I should attempt to resolve the issue directly with you before initiating a review. Briefly, my claim is that your decision was a compromise that did not represent the consensus of the participants in the discussion. I have described the case more fully on the undeletion page. I ask that you review that and please comment. I hope that you will evaluate it objectively in spite of my somewhat emotional rhetoric. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:E5DA:8F55:D7C2:9B06 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have chosen to simply ignore my request. I believe I have satisfied the requirement to consult you, so I will now proceed with the deletion review. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:A92E:C8E4:3B62:AC87 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be in disagreement with people I normally agree with, and i want to make sure it is not due to my misunderstanding. Though an admin, I cannot find the deleted version of the article on incel, so I cannot really understand why it is fringe. The various article moves seem to have confused the log. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I did finally find the versions. Just after asking you, of course. I always do find things just after i ask for help. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Involuntary celibacy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Involuntary celibacy. 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. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:A92E:C8E4:3B62:AC87 (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD close request

Could you also close another one of CoM's AfD's, this one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native cuisine of Hawaii? I'm not at all concerned if you close it as keep, I just want it closed so we can all move on from this nonsense. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas: Done! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create or undelete Category:1940 establishments in Wisconsin

I created a new page for Kohler Foundation that was founded in Wisconsin in 1940 but category does not currently exist. There is a redbox stating that it was previously deleted but I am not clear on why. Would you please review this and either undelete the category, create it, or notify me on my talk page if I can create a new category page? Thank you for you assistance. Nyth83 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyth83, My apologies... meant to reply to this already. You can move forward as you see fit; the category was swept up in a mass deletion of a banned user's creations. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White privilege

You understand that that EvergreenFir, Malik Shabaz, and others are gaming the system and exploiting numbers and rules to proliferate their own discriminatory views, right? Ancholm (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks I see. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ancholm: You understand that you're a hair's breadth away from losing your ability to edit this site, right? Either start editing with a collaborative attitude and assume good faith on the part of the editors you're working with, or leave. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I assume they have the best intentions. However it is clear that the aforementioned users have, with the best intentions, stacked the vote like we see in the 3v1 shoutdowns, and Gamed the system in so far as "maintaining a non-neutral point of view" as it can be seen most pages they are on have an NPOV flag and any edits that attempt to fix the perspective are filibustered. Perhaps, in their good faith, such users simply forgot, in doctoral induced haze, that opinions contradicting their own are worthy of consideration?