User talk:Coffee

Archives

Archive 1 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 Long Inactive Period October 2009 November 2009 December 2009

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

I was wondering if I could get my restrictions lifted or atleast some of them. It's been a week now and I have had no complaints on my talk page. I would like to be part of the full community once again.--Levineps (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already wrote above, I was wondering if my sanctions could be modified since I feel that have paid a price for my actions.--Levineps (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my decision to make. Please take it up at WP:ANI. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I contributed a page about Alya Nuri a 9 year old girl who is an author and has written a series about Smoking, Drugs and Alcohol to help kids understand how harmful this stuff is and how to avoid it. The article was supported by links and now I have some more links to support the article and its notability. Can you please restore the article so that I can make the required changes and make it more authentic. Thank you. Viralthoughts (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Viralthoughts[reply]

Hello!

You closed an afd I raised on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadira Alieva as merge. The article is still standalone, I wonder what happens next? Is it my responsibiliyt as nom to do the necessary? Im still gingerly edging my way into editing & would appreciate your help, cheers! Rootless Juice (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...\and on another matter, if you could provide direction on COI matters, I have made a post on that noticeboard. Thanks Rootless Juice (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passing by after seeing your worship of holy Alison at Flo's RfA LoL ... and now seeing the very good sign (of service) embodied in your USAF wings ... not to mention the wonderful sign of a steaming cup of that which makes the world go round (and, um, matches your usernam) ... Salute.

(Note: I'm not in the service, but my dad was an Army pilot, and I once put my mouth on a funnel/tube hanging on the wall behind the pilot's seat of a Beaver thinking it was something to talk into ... before being informed it was for another purpose. LoL i.e., a license for one salute.) Cheers. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 01:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I always appreciate when people take time out of their day to show their military some appreciation. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi coffee thanks for the welcome IdeaKnight 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read in the Signpost about your bot to add WikiProject banners to talk pages and was wondering if you could start that for WikiProject Rodents. I asked at WT:RODENT#Automated banner adding and the only response I got was "why not do it right now", so I suppose the project agrees. The stub category is Category:Rodent stubs with all subcategories. Thanks, Ucucha 17:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold I've been on somewhat of a wikibreak here recently, so it might be a week or two before I get to it. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's not urgent. Ucucha 22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's not all in vain. Kevin (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem mate, Geni is acting solely on his own POV. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently edited the page Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, which was protected against edit-warring about the sort of content that you added.

As you will be aware, the policy WP:FULL states that "Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). After consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page." You will also be aware that there is not currently consensus for this change (though I believe there may be once the current RfC concludes), and that the community's view (at WP:BLPRFC#View by Sandstein) is that the ArbCom motion does not change policy.

Please revert yourself, or you may be blocked for edit-warring and misuse of administrator tools. Regards,  Sandstein  08:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "communities view" doesn't really matter in this case, ArbCom passed a rather simple motion that everyone has pretty much interpreted the same way. The consensus at the RFC is that PRODs on unsourced BLPs should not be removed unless sources are added, this to you should be better than me just mass deleting, which believe me I have no problem starting again. There's no reason to delay adding it to that policy, other than plain and simple policy wonkery, which I will not tolerate. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom made no statement about WP:PROD. I don't agree with their statement about BLPs, as it seems contrary to WikiMedia policies, but, even accepting it, they did not specifically say that (1) being an unsourced BLP is a SPEEDY deletion criteria; or (2) a PROD of an (unsourced) BLP may not be removed. They seem to have left it to the community to decide the specific mechanism by which unsourced BLPs are removed. The community has not yet come to consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you read all that in that one motion? Congrats on creating a load of bullshit from thin air. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be absurd to add a WP:WQA alert based on that alone, or while the new matter is before ArbCom, but you are clearly interpreting the ArbCom ruling as being something which it is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to the discussion above. I will request a discussion of your action, and my block, at WP:AN.  Sandstein  08:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would unblock myself, except for the fact that I am not trying to start extreme amounts of drama about it. This is a highly unwarranted, and punitive block, I suggest you revert yourself. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I might quote something from the ArbCom motion: "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns." You are in direct violation of this sentence, I would be more worried if I was you here. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see now WP:AN#Coffee edit warring on protected policy page, now blocked; please review. I fail to see how I have interfered in the enforcement of WP:BLP by blocking you. You will note that I did not revert your addition to the policy page.  Sandstein  08:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you fail to see? Well that's a surprise... Considering that the edit to the WP:PROD page was not the only BLP related edit I was going to do tonight, I think you might need to put a pair of glasses on and read. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your position is that you enjoy ArbCom immunity from being blocked for whatever reason because you intend to make edits that would help enforce WP:BLP? That is ... original.  Sandstein  08:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you forgot that you are an extremely involved administrator on this very subject? That in and of itself shows that this block was extremely out of process. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#WP:PROD wheel war and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 09:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you might be interested in the new template I drafted: {{Dated prod blp}}, which could be used together with the already existing {{Prod uns blp}}. Is that something like what you had in mind? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I can assure you I'll be using this a lot. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]