User talk:Coffee

This user is more awesome than you.

Please strike your personal attack

you made here. I do not appreciate you calling my edits - good faithed, legitimate edits - "childish". I have no idea where that came from but you simply don't call good faithed edits made by long standing established users (I've been here longer than you have, I've made twice as many edits - without automated tools - I've created about ten times the articles you have) "childish", just like you don't refer to legitimate edits as "vandalism". I don't care if you're an administrator. Oh wait, I actually do, since an administrators are held to a higher standard and should know better.

If you wish you can make your point without resorting to personal attacks. You could start by actually explaining what in the world is suppose to be wrong with that edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Referring to your actions as childish, is not a personal attack. It isn't even ad hominem. Please stop distracting from the actual issue Marek. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you actually said "behavior" and there isn't really a distinction of identity from the person who's behavior your commenting on at that point. I'm not really sure how calling someone (or their behavior) "childish" could be construed as anything but insulting, and thus a personal attack (and the suggestion that this insult somehow exists on the same continuum as ad hominem is confusing... Unless of course your insinuation is that VM is actually a child). What your comment does not do, as made evident by Volunteer Marek's request that you make it clear now, is serve as any sort of cogent commentary on what was wrong with his edit and summary. The article talk page from the time period you used one singular, unrepresentative diff to make your point, shows there was plenty of discussion going on at the time to support such an edit. I'll make this same comment at AE if needed, but I would hope that you would instead choose to abide by VM's request and take a second look at your wording for both clarity and to allow a cooler mind to prevail. Lizzius (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Question

Coffee, I had thought that the question at issue at AFD is not "do sources now in the article suffice?" but, rather, "do the RS that exist in the world suffice?" I appreciate the specificity of your closing note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher W. Cabrera. But can you affirm that with an article such as Cabrera, an article that was unmistakable PROMO, but that did, at least as I recall it, have some indication of possible notability on the page or in the (copious and overwhelmingly bad) sourcing already on the page, there is no argument and no amount or caliber of sourcing that would support keep? But that such an article could be kept if someone rewrote it as a properly phrased and sourced article? Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: If proper sourcing and notability can be established, then yes an article can exist. I even happily provide any needed data from deleted articles in such cases. But, WP:DEL4 prescribes deletion in cases of clear advertising or promotional content, which in this case applied. I should have noted in the close though (as I usually do), that the decision holds no prejudice against a new article being created, if proper sourcing, etc., are used. So, my apologies if it was in any way confusing. I hope that clears things up. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. In other words, in such a case, bringing sources to AFD does not suffice. The article itself would have to be brought up to snuff. Got it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: Precisely, and in certain cases if the current article passes (i.e. if an editor brings it up to snuff during a discussion), but the history contains promotional content, we can simply utilize WP:REVDEL. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #16306

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #16306 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Salvidrim! (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

Salvid (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Aug 09, 2016 13:04:11

Message: Testing

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Nevermind, just testing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Ferdinand Shifidi

Please activate this article that was deleted on August 4,He is a notable figure in Namibia, in the meantime i will try to improve it by adding more sourcesEndola82 (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello and a trout

Hello, Chet! You blocked my account about two weeks ago looking at a report filed for my account by an editor.But for two facts below the report should have been invalid:

1. The editor who reported me failed to put a warning message on my talk page before reporting me. From what I see, one "must" put warning before taking any action.
2. And they failed to talk with me before reporting me. I was not much given the chance to discuss and before I knew it I was reported.

After they stopped the edit war, I could finally talk with them on the talk page but meanwhile the page was protected so they could only request changes on the talk page and go through the censous, which how it should have been from start. They were deleting the huge amount of content without censous. To me it was type of vandalism and I reverted their edits. I might have misjudged this, disputable, but could you take away the rollback rights without even looking at my edit history? Wasn't it a bit over the top?

It would be very nice if your decision could be double checked considering the facts started above. Thanks and cheers. ~ Elitropia (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Elitropia: That's what we administrators commonly refer to as WP:WIKILAWYERING, specifically these three points:

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles
• Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express
• Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions

Or are you really trying to tell me that you 1. didn't know that you aren't to revert more than 3 times in a 24 hours timespan, 2. that you had rollback and didn't know this, and 3. that you weren't aware that rollback was not to be used to aid your side in an edit war? Even if I was to assume you didn't know all of these things, that would still be cause for an admin to not return the rollback tool to you. Inexperience simply isn't a good argument for being granted tools like this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Chet! I see you are ignoring my points on block you did and I see you removed my trout. Unfortunate we are lacking of a bit of sense of humor here : ) You don't like Monty Python?

If I may answer to your points:1. Of course, I didn't. If I did know, I wouldn't be here, right? You will see no single example of such in my history. 2. I sure did know I had rollback. I used it to fight vandalism over a year when I was an active editor (5 years ago). 3. If you are trying to be mean, you are well managing that.

I see you say you are willing to help editors in Wikipedia, but I got no help from you so far. And please don't take my messages here as trying to judge you or anything. I am only trying to tell you that there's been a misunderstanding and trying to put this as friendly as possible.

I will also have to disagree with what you say: "Inexperience simply isn't a good argument for being granted tools like this." Please see point 2 above. Mind you that this is only "you" who thinks that. Is there maybe a possible chance that you are misreading all my intentions here? See, I am not an active editor and I only come to watch my pages. I only don't want to be misunderstood and set things right. I was protecting my list page and now the editor who filed a report on me has to go through the census to do any changes they wanted in the list as it was supposed to be from start. Please see this entry [1]and this one [2]. Mind you on the additional comment on the strong oppose entry in the latter.

I hope I could make myself clear this time and you would be willing to at least "kindly" (no need for mean language, really) reconsider what I am trying to tell. And can I add my trout back? : ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 US Election AE template

Hi Coffee. In Template:2016 US Election AE where is "Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." wording coming from and how is "firm consensus" defined? Background: Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_Clarification. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)