User talk:Wiki-Pharaoh/Archive 2

Bieber
I completely understand the need to keep religion separate from science, but it is wrong to take aim at Justin Bieber and his partner! They have been together for some time! --Milowent • hasspoken 12:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is classic, love it. Olowe2011  Talk 12:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The Dutchess
I think it's kind of unfair that you would infer I was a vandal for removing unsourced info. That's not assuming good faith, which is a policy on Wikipedia if you didn't know. Aleccat 21:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleccat (talk • contribs)

Rollback granted
Hi Wiki-Coffee. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AWiki-Coffee enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Speedy deletion declined: Hans Hulsbosch
Hello Wiki-Coffee, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hans Hulsbosch, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Hulsbosch has won most of the national and international advertising and design awards. is an assertion of importance sufficient to avoid A7.''' You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you bother checking the references... Wiki-Coffee  Talk 23:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a concern about the DailyTelegraph.com.au? No opinion as to whether the article would survive AFD, but if we are discussing the quality of the references it is not an A7.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not so much quality as to if they actually link to something. Wiki-Coffee  Talk 18:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, wp:Linkrot is a big problem, this is what the article looked like in 2010 I suspect that many of those links could be recovered if you went to the Wayback_Machine, the risk is that some people simply remove deadlinks not realising how important they are for tracking down references. I'm hoping that eventually we can get a bot that links to the Wayback machine automatically as links go dead. We already have 144,000 articles with the Dead link template, and that's just for articles where people have unsuccessfully tried to find where the page has moved to or been archived. The number of articles where one or more references no longer work must be far greater - and hugely increased this week with the US government sites being Trumped. But speedy deletion or indeed deletion is not the solution to old articles effected by linkrot, especially when at least one reference still worked.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not studied wp:Linkrot or its effects so much here on Wikipedia so your information is awesome, I will look into it. I also didn't note the date the article was created and assumed it was created recently with deliberate dead link placement. Well this is a learning experience, thank you. And furthermore, a bot would be very useful which automatically detects dead links however the implemention would be very difficult especially if the process was to be completely automated. Again, thank you for taking the time to inform me of these issues. Wiki-Coffee  Talk 19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, this place can be a tad complicated at times. Would you mind removing or striking your speedy deletion note to User:Philologists? Also please be careful when you tag someone's edit as vandalism. Rollback is for blatant vandalism, not for disputes as to whether Chairs are Chairmen or Chairwomen. There's an upset probable newbie at User_talk:66.31.155.91.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ With regard to User_talk:66.31.155.91 I had thought that he'd changed a description referring to the male in the article deliberately from chairman to chairwoman. I will have to look more at context next time, thank you for drawing my attention to it.  Wiki-Coffee  Talk 01:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Julio Sadorra. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I  Talk to my owner :Online 17:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, as a non-admin you should almost never be closing deletion discussions seven hours after the discussion is started. Please see WP:NAC. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The consenus has already been established through Wikipedia Project Chess which determined chess players who are Grandmasters are notable. The closure was due to that fact that I did and still do believe that consensus has already been established on the issue of notability in which is the issue raised by the nominator. Wiki-Coffee  Talk 17:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not how AFD works. Unless a nomination has been made in clear bad faith, is clearly a bad nomination, or has been withdrawn, a discussion must run a minimum of 7 days. Primefac (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it is a bad notmination if the nominator has indicated an unfounded issue of notability which has already been established by consensus on Wikipedia. The rational or logic is not subjective so why are you needing to issue a warning for a bad closure when in fact it had grounded rationale. Wiki-Coffee  Talk 17:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue was also raised in a recent sockpuppet investigation which found no issue with this closure of the AfD discussion by a CU/Admin so perhaps this issue in of itself is worth gaining a consensus on? Wiki-Coffee  Talk 17:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also contend that the nominators comment "Very small 2 lines article" constitutes a bad nomination Wiki-Coffee  Talk 17:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Point 1: I made a poor choice of words in my above statement. There is a difference between a "poor" nomination (something like this case), and a "bad" nomination (where it's just a blank AFD, or gibberish, or doesn't say why the AFD has been started.
 * Point 2: The SPI was referring to the Dallas Dance AFD (and it wasn't being closed either, just semi-protected to avoid further vandalism). Additionally, the user that started the Sadorra AFD is not a confirmed sock.
 * Point 3: See point 1. Just because it's not an in-depth essay on why they feel the page doesn't meet the notability requirements does not mean it should be procedurally closed. It's not pretty, but they have stated why they feel it should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It was an SPI against me seperate from the one you mentioned made by a sockpuppet and referenced my AfD closure within it. Furthermore, the foundation argument by the nominator is that the article is not notable however, notability has already been established by consensus thus why would it or should it need further discussion. The nominations basis is already resolved by consensus so why must another vote be needed? The fact that the base principle(s) of the nomination are established by existing consensus amounts to it making it a bad or poor nomination. Wiki-Coffee  Talk 17:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if your personal policy on determining the validity of an AfD closure is that even if prior consensus is reached on notability one may continue to nominate articles based on an already established notability by consensus then any person would be able to persist in creating AfD about an already established issue in disregard for any consensus that has already been reached. This would eliminate the purpose of consensus being any form of binding decision on Wikipedia at all and ultimately mean that AfD or any discussion requiring a vote in of themselves are useless. Wiki-Coffee  Talk 18:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Claiming that "every X is notable" because previous discussions have found other instances of X to be notable, or worse, because some WikiProject established a local consensus that all instances of X are notable, is hardly convincing - in fact, it's listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions due to the problems with this approach, see WP:ITSA. Each article should be evaluated on its own merits. This is not 's private policy. Huon (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a case if every X is notable. It is an issue as to an X+Y. In this case Y has gained consensus by a body of experts who are specialist In Y’s to be notable. It is not to say that X by itself is notable however, X+Y is. This article was nominated for lacking notability, yet that notability has already been established by the experts in the field of the articles subject. Wiki-Coffee  Talk 18:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How exactly is "chess players who are Grandmasters are notable" not a case of "every X is notable", for X being "chess Grandmaster"? If WikiProject Pokemon had formed a consensus that every individual Pokemon is notable, would you agree they are a body of experts who are specialists in the notability of Pokemon, and their consensus should preclude deletion discussions for all articles on individual Pokemon? What makes WikiProject Chess and chess Grandmasters any different? Huon (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no harm in leaving an AFD open for the required length of time. One point to note, the "grandmaster-designation-demonstrates-notability" is not an actual guideline (an example of which is WP:PROF), but rather a preference from a WikiProject specifically interested in that subject. Consensus at AFD can overturn local WikiProject consensus. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "How exactly is "chess players who are Grandmasters are notable" I have no idea because I am not a researcher nor expert in chess however, those who are seem to believe the title makes somebody notable for reasons they have already discussed and determined. Thus if this assertion has already been reached and an AfD is opened from a potential sock-puppet who has bought into question an already determined notability then why shouldn’t it be closed? Wiki-Coffee  Talk 18:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We find ourselves at an impasse, because the nominator is a sock (now blocked) and the discussion has been closed. This makes the question of "all are Grandmasters notable" a rather moot point for the moment. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was aware that the person was a potential sockpuppet as I had found that page from another sockpuppet investigation. The reasons for closing that discussion as I said are due to valid reasons that the nominator made a bad or poor nomination for deletion. I would like it if you could strike out your warning and we can help each other on some articles if you want. Wiki-Coffee  Talk 18:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For future reference, you should go to SPI before speedy closing. As mentioned, having an AFD (even a spurious one) open for a few extra minutes is not the end of the world. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

SPI
Someone has opened an SPI against us claiming that your account is a sockpuppet of mine. I have made a incident report at WP:ANI because it is obvious someone is trying to disrupt Wikipedia at my AfD.  CatcherStorm    talk   13:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)   CatcherStorm    talk   13:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait what? Somebody has openened a sockpuppet saying I am you. What is the link if you don't mind to both the ANI and SPI. Maybe I would like to be you for a day but I am sure we are not the same person? This has made me laugh. Wiki-Coffee  Talk 14:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You can take your lecture based on your less than three thousand edits and stick it. The notion that someone recognizing you for something equating with notability is laughable. Notability (with some clearly defined exceptions, none of which are the current idiot occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue recognizing the subject) comes from people writing about that recognition. If you are ignorant of what notability means and so lazy you cannot write your own rationale for your vote, AFC is probably not for you. Yes I'm rude, so please do us both a favor and don't bother replying. I only accept input based on knowledge. John from Idegon (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

PPG shortcut
Two and three letter shortcuts are an extremely limited resource. Please tag WP:PPG as CSD Db-self. The shortcut can be created if/when the target page becomes a guideline. Alsee (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been so eager to use this! Wiki-Coffee  Talk 11:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I would love to, but: I will wait for someone to actually need it and then hand over to them. As it stands that link makes it easier for me to reference the essay. Wiki-Coffee Talk 11:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Question
Are you actually here to write content, or just fuck about in the WP namespace ? Nick (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Heya: Sorry, could you expand on what you mean? Wiki-Coffee Talk 14:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are making many hundreds of edits in the Wikipedia namespace and very few edits to actual articles at the moment, and from looking at past initiatives you've launched (some of which you've abandoned) you seem to come to Wikipedia mainly to write proposals, propose changes to existing policies and often to complain about existing policies/guidelines. You're drifting into the realms of not being here to contribute to the building of an encyclopedia. I would suggest you should focus on writing and editing content, doing more anti-vandalism work (you seemed quite competent doing this previously), copy-editing text or other meaningful improvements to articles, giving the writing of templates, proposals and research materials a bit of a rest for the foreseeable future. Nick (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't the backend of Wikipedia as important as the front end? Wiki-Coffee  Talk 15:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. And the contributions you've made to the back end have been less than helpful in any case - probably because you've so little experience of the front-end, the suggestions you've made about the back-end are unhelpful. Nick (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not everyone can spend 24-7 editing Wikipedia to gain what you might call experience. And sure, I agree with you perhaps some of my backend contribs are not useful to you. But I can tell you they have taught me more about Wikipedia then reverting vandals has. If at first you don’t succeed try again is one of my sayings J In this case … keep trying til’ the ball gets in the hole! Wiki-Coffee  Talk 06:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Increasing exposure of an AfD
Hello how does one go about listing an AfD in discussion pages. I am not so sure if I termed that right but what I mean is that I often see AfD's being listed for discussion by topic which increases their exposure for example
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 9:30 am, Today (UTC+0)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 9:31 am, Today (UTC+0)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 9:31 am, Today (UTC+0)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 9:31 am, Today (UTC+0)

How do I go about this? Wiki-Coffee Talk 23:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're looking for WP:DELSORT. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you :-) Wiki-Coffee  Talk 23:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You helped me find a new tool to play with! I love it omg if I knew about this before thank you man much appreciated. (if you want to see what I found contribs then the java scrip page edit.) Wiki-Coffee  Talk 23:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm not meaning to WP:HOUND you, it is just that as a Commons admin, when I see an image with license discrepancies, I can not look in to stuff further. Hope you're not taking these taggings personally. (t) Josve05a  (c) 01:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That file you just nomed was made by me lol Wiki-Coffee  Talk 01:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ushers: The Front of House Musical
You know you shouldn't replace an AFD tag with a CSD tag, right? If you think an article should be speedy deleted, state that in the discussion. --Neil N  talk to me 14:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)



Heya: I replaced the AfD with CsD because the nominator appeared to have elected to use the wrong tag which would require consensus to be reached on something that is clearly advertising. It is not okay for us to be expecting something that is blatant advertising to require going around the houses. It’s an unproductive waste of time for editors who could otherwise be contributing to other articles that are constructive. But, with this said, this is just my opinion. If you would rather the process take an unmerited amount of time to deal with something that is spam/advertising and soak up everyone else’s time then that’s your choice but it doesn’t really make anything easier. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 15:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You can add the CSD tag as well as the AFD tag certainly but you shouldn't replace it. Amortias (T)(C) 15:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not realize you could co-tag, thank you Amortias :) → (talk to me!) (contributions) 15:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Its not something that comes up that often but it does happen. Amortias (T)(C) 15:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ffs
Can someone please get this archiving thing working. These posts lingering about here are distressing. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 19:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about your automatic archiving. It looks like you only added it a few hours ago, and the bot generally only runs once a day ('round about midnight). You're welcome to manually archive them if you can't stand having them hang around for another eight hours or so. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol, Will moving them to a /archive_2 page etc. still automatically get linked in that archive search bar? → (talk to me!) (contributions) 19:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You would have to follow the same protocol that you set up for the archiving, which in this case looks like year/month. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I will have to work it out soon, having Beiber at the top of my talk page doesn't seem right. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 19:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a way for me to speed the bot up someway or does it just auto run itself? → (talk to me!) (contributions) 21:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Bot runs automatically. No way to change it. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Am I right by saying that you are somewhat familiar with bots on Wikipedia? Don't you create them or something? How did you get into doing that kind of thing if you don't mind me asking and how did you find out about how to implement those things here on Wikipedia, is there an article or something? → (talk to me!) (contributions) 21:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Only in that I use/interact with a few of them on a regular basis (archive bots, auto-subst bots, etc). If you're interested in that sort of thing, I'd check out the Bots page, which is a good resource/place to start. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Tube Challenge legal threat
Looks like the thread has been closed now, but for what it's worth - I can't see any cases offhand where one of the user's IPs has been told to contact the legal team (beyond standard NLT warnings), but looking at my brief and abandoned email correspondences with the user, I've told them twice to read WP:LIBEL and explicitly to contact the legal team, in 2015 and 2016. They said in an email last July "I will contact them". --McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * (Incidentally, as someone who's just spent a short while combing through talk page searches for the words "tube challenge" and "libel" - and who posted the above comment partly so that it'd be documented somewhere for anyone else looking for the same information in future - it'd be good if you archived your talk page instead of blanking it. You can automate the process very easily so that old threads get tidied up by a bot.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That is a good idea, I will have a look and see what I can do about automating it. Cheers. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 09:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have added the archive now and it seems to be working. I appreciate you pointing that out it looks like it can really help streamline things. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 13:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Good to hear it, glad it's working. --McGeddon (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community
The following reaction by you to the mere fact that I would reply to your RfC was quite unhelpful: "There are plenty enough logical fallacies in this discussion let alone having the religious flocking in."

If I understood you correctly, you were reacting to the fact that I edit religion articles (among many topics), and therefore must be "religious." Please correct me if I'm wrong. Wikipedia is a community, with editors coming from many different backgrounds. Diversity is one of our strengths, as it is in any community. Being religious, atheist, gay, dark-skinned, lesbian, white-skinned, male, female, etc., should not even be an issue in such discussions. Please consider this definition of prejudice: "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics." If I misunderstood your remark, my apologies. First Light (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello. Firstly, I welcome your WP:GOODFAITH and openness to the idea that I, in fact commented in good faith. Furthermore, I didn’t realise you edited religious articles the notion was developed from many editors contributing to the discussion with assertions based on dogma and almost religiously sounding arguments. Religiously in that they argued points that could not be proven.


 * I believe religion and personal faith is a deeply individual facet which has no real consequence on the objectivity of edits on Wikipedia, at least one’s personal religious beliefs should not be deciding factors in objective arguments. This means that when speaking specifically about religion, you are right, Wikipedia is a place for many people with a verity of views and belief systems and it shouldn’t have any consequence on how one is viewed by the community. With this said, and moving onto a purely personal standpoint, religious dispositions can sometimes weigh against the academic quality of articles especially when there is an agenda behind the editing of specific content that one has strong emotions towards. This factor is called emotional bias and is not directly a product of religious disposition but rather any viewpoint which is based on strong personal emotions. In this way, religion is not singled out as a cause for this form of bias and indeed it would be futile for a person to believe that all people who belong to religions or have strong personal religious beliefs are inherently bias when editing religious articles on Wikipedia. There are several other types of personal experiences or emotional niches which can cause bias, from articles on self-harm and suicide to articles on political parties there will always be a potential element of bias in a person’s edits on topics they are closely attached to emotionally rather than objectively.


 * However, I have no knowledge or reason to believe that your edits to religious articles on Wikipedia have resulted or been influenced by emotional biases. And retorting back to the central point, I in no way intended it to come across that my comments had been aimed at yourself for this reason. As mentioned, I used the term religious, rather frivolously and for that I apologize, in the debate to reference those making dogmatic assertions and requesting an element of proof on something that cannot be proven for or against. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 07:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, since your comment was a direct reply to mine, I hope I can be forgiven for the mistake. :-). Yes, nearly every life experience, belief, practice, job, etc., can cause emotional bias. Religion, or non-religion, is surely one of many. Scientific beliefs are another, strangely enough, when too emotionally held. Disputes on plant, bird, science, and medical articles here are somewhat reflective of the real world. And I see now your use of 'religious' in a metaphorical sense, since it is sometimes applied even to scientific beliefs, when too emotionally held. First Light (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

List of suicides that have been attributed to academic pressures
I understand that it can be hard to accept that other people might have sound reasons for thinking other than you do, but to be so vociferous in your response to somebody who essentially agrees with you seems very peculiar. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I might have missed something and if I have then I am sorry, I got the impression that you invoked bias in that you thought I was being bias. This seemed like a bold statement with no merit said for effect rather than substance which is why I said it was theatrical. Also i'm actually very happy you have other opinions than I do because that's what fuels good debate I just thought labelling me bias was a bit rude to be honest.


 * Just so you know I don't think there was anything wrong with what you said other than you claiming I had biases. If I misconceived something then sorry. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 17:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Um help
Hello, I am looking for somebody to close a deletion nomination I made to an article. I have since completely overhauled the article myself and thus I would like to rescind my nomination. The article is @ Max Spiers. Cheers (thanks). → (talk to me!) (contributions) 12:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There has been significant discussion, on both sides of the debate, and so you cannot withdraw your nomination. It's been a weeks since the nomination was made, so the discussion will be closed soon. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes good point okay thank you Primefac :-) → (talk to me!) (contributions) 12:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What is the ref code for two column reflist? → (talk to me!) (contributions) 16:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * is the preferred method for a two-column reflist. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) By the way thank you for reverting the talk page for that article. I accidentally removed that instead of removing a tag from the main article. Are banstars still a thing around here? I will give you a "good helper" banstar. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 17:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I just went to your homepage to give you a banstar and noticed you are now an admin LOL, congratulations. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 17:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Max Spiers
Well, I thank you for all your substantive improvements! I hope that I was right in changing "verity" to "variety". J S Ayer (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed you changed that to the right thing which is good because I did not notice that before, cheers :) → (talk to me!) (contributions) 02:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited All Souls Church (Braintree, Massachusetts), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Your issues with rules
I saw your proposals about the rules; the majority seems to oppose your proposals. Maybe you can go to "Wikipedia talk:" pages, like WT:policies and guidelines or WT:NOT, where you can ask questions about specific rules. I wonder which rules you have issues with, so I can guide you there. --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, which rules? I do not have a problem with Wikipedia rules so much as I think they can be improved. More specifically the layout and accessibility of them to editors. Right now they are not very clear and sometimes (even most of the time perhaps) people seem to argue about which ones are relevant and which ones are not. This isn't productive. But the truth is, it is not for me to say. Wikipedia's community has decided and thus that is how it stands. There is no personal damage onto me so my suggestions are really just that. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 07:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Which rules, eh? You were discussing the rules about protecting pages, like WP:protection policy. Also, why proposing Rule 1 and requesting clarification on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES? --George Ho (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There are lots of rules I come across in my work off-Wiki. When I need to refer to one I know if its an Act of Parliament or Case Law and I know the precedence of those rules. They are clearly defined and which has authority in which case doesn't have a 100 degree angle of interpretation. I found the rules on Wikipedia have 180 degrees worth of interpretation and thus there is no clarity of which actually applies to which situation. In spite of this, I appreciate that these rules and doctrines here on Wikipedia have long been established and for those on here they seem to work in a way. However, I am persuaded by my own views and that of experienced others that the current policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are so obscure that they are counterproductive. I really no longer take notice of them anymore given the wide array of interpretations people seem to apply to them, each person having a different view on them without there being any real authority which has the right to establish a firm interpretation. This isn't how I personally operate it is a sort of anarchy. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 08:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can go to WP:help desk and ask if you like. Or go to WP:VPIL, where you can incubate your ideas and flourish them. George Ho (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:policies and guidelines page yet? George Ho (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No I have not read it but I will do so now. Sorry, I am not used to seeing a whole page of guidelines for how to create policies / guidelines on a website. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 08:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When you finish reading the page, you can also read Principles, a list of so-called Wikipedia principles and other essays. You can see a navigation template at the bottom of a page. --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are curious about a policy or guideline and want to ask, feel free; again, I recommend going to "Wikipedia talk:" page. I did so at WT:V and WT:canvassing. George Ho (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a list of "core" guidelines and policies which are generally enforced? → (talk to me!) (contributions) 09:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Before reading the other rules, I would first recommend reading Here to build an encyclopedia and Purpose. Afterwards, you can read Core content policies, which considers WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV the three core "content" policies. Also, there are WP:list of policies and WP:list of guidelines. If you want to create or improve an article, how about WP:Your first article (if you haven't built one before) or WP:writing better articles (an essay)? Again, read the first two: "Here to build..." and "Purpose" before reading others. --George Ho (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Not as easy to read as facebooks community standards haha. You see that Facebook page, that is the kind of direction I'd love to see Wikipedia policies take. A simple, single page which deals with things. Do people usually have the time to read so many guideline or policies and I wonder what type of people are attracted to reading so many. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 09:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There are also WP:What Wikipedia is not, which has the "not a social media" section, like Facebook; and Wikimedia policy, which shows two links, including one to "Terms of use" by the Foundation. You might want to read the guideline, Wikimedia sister projects, which also links you to other sister projects of Wikipedia, like Wikimedia Commons and Meta-wiki, which deals with the Foundation and its projects (like Wikipedia) as a whole. Even meta-wiki also has new project proposals there. Well... treat it like an invitation, though it also tells you how to link a sister project in articles. George Ho (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Community behavioural policy?
The question is, does Wikipedia have behavioural policies that cover how users interact with each other? If so how do I find them? Thank you. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 17:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This may be of use to you - Category:Wikipedia behavioral policies and guidelines. Chrissymad  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  17:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of KnapNok Games page
Hi Wiki-Coffee, I noticed that you marked the (now removed) page of KnapNok Games for speedy deletion under the criteria of "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". While I have no issues with admitting that I am an employee of the company described in that page, I believe I had written it with as much of an objective view as possible. The page was also linked to on several pages as can be seen on its what links here page.

In any case, if possible, would it be OK to retrieve the content for that page for my own safe-keeping?

Cheers,

Anchel (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to portals
You can explore Portal:LGBT and Portal:Law. You can explore more at Portal:Contents. --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

SRAEG
Per "In the case, you do not wish to consent to continue being a subject in our research please inform us and we will cease the collection of further data involving yourself." I'm going to invoke this, and request that you provide to me a copy of all the data you currently hold on me.

I also suspect this is an enormous piss take and you're trolling the entire project. This is all just complete fantasy nonsense and I think you need to seek professional help. Nick (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Non of the data which is collected is personally identifiable, usernames are assigned a value like 1,2,3,4 and so on. "Cease the collection of data involving yourself" refers to the cessation of collecting data so far as we know is related to your edits on Wikipedia. For example, some of your contributions might be categorised but you nor anyone else can be identified personally by any data we store or keep in relation to the research. I apologise if this was not made clearer.→ (talk to me!) (contributions) 20:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Username
Hi Wiki-Coffee. I wanted to raise the issue of your username being very similar to that of Coffee, to the extent that multiple users have confused you for them. Placing "Wiki-" at the start of a username that's identical to a long term and well known editor likely falls afoul of the username policy, even if it's a common word such as in this case. Would you consider renaming to avoid confusion? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If I am honest I have a problem with re-naming because I like the name Wiki-Coffee, additionally I am conducting a research project off-wiki which I have used my username as is at the moment. Re-naming would require me to go through each instance of Wiki-Coffee and remove it / change it. I could make it clearer on my talk page that I am not Coffee however, they are distinct usernames :). Furthermore, G-R renamed to this after two previous name changes in the past already. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 07:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to give you another chance to change your username voluntarily. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you go to the global name change request page and request it yourself then with a reason why then provide me with a link and I will endorse it. You will be better at explaining why I want another name change. Thank you. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 20:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Or we can just block this account for violating our username policy. You may feel free to use this account name on other wikis if you wish, but our local policy overrides any global usage. Sam already explained the issue quite clearly; and now I think you're just being deliberately obtuse... which is entirely unhelpful. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can change user names locally? → (talk to me!) (contributions) 21:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Name change requested, Steward is approving at the moment. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 21:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorted, hope that helps people not get the impression we are housed up together. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 21:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! don't forget the sig! &mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a cup  //  beans  // 21:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * → (talk to me!) (contributions) 22:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Bot
Is there a bot to change all my old signatures to the new one? → (talk to me!) (contributions) 22:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No; old signatures are not replaced automatically. Primefac (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Vocabulary
Moving our conversation here from User talk:TransporterMan. You know full well that at no point have I claimed you "drew lines in the sand and started to attack editors personally". I merely pointed out that sentences like "quiddity of current policy might be to débarrer the subsistence of capricious news sources" and "manifested a recherché aptitude for which I resolutely hold in high regard" make little to no sense to the majority of editors without the use of a dictionary, and you should consider using simpler and/or more common terminology. I am neither attempting to bully you or restrict your free speech, and this has nothing to do with your beliefs or policy suggestions. Sam Walton (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel that you have evaluated "what" is said over "why" it was said. I propose the notion that perhaps I was deliberately seeking out those who understood exactly what I was saying (regardless of if they have used a dictionary or not.) Those who have a disposition to evaluate critically immediately flocked the conversation and this told me something. Furthermore, those who are prepared to educate themselves on the meaning of the words used would be pleasantly surprised by its sense and therefore would be more likely to reply to the content and meaning of what was said rather than taking aversion for ultimately meaningless reasons. Those “targeting” a person rather than evaluating the content they produce are very happy to flock to what they perceive as affronts to their intelligence, or indeed other combative reasons. The behaviour of this type is extraordinarily interesting especially when demonstrated online. I find it fascinating for an innumerable amount of reasons. I’ve used the same “test” in real life by using complex and archaic language with various people; “True” academics usually got lost in languages meanings and began to argue back with their own use of archaic language. Those with lower levels of education usually find it humorous, however, what is perhaps most interesting is that unlike online, no one appeared to take offence to it or react in a defensive way. But anyway, to conclude, I am not out rightly offended by what you said but astonished that you decided to pick away at my use of certain vocabulary so intimately as to accuse me of using a thesaurus and trying to appear “smart.”  This conversation could go on for a long time but ultimately I will consign the whole reaction to my use of archaic language to one word “astounding.” → (talk to me!) (contributions) 17:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an international project, contributors have varying levels of ability in both reading and writing English, it is generally accepted that contributors should use the most straight forward and easy to understand English when communicating with fellow contributors on talk pages and the project namespace. Nick (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, enough.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

You are clearly either intentionally disrupting Wikipedia as part of a research project, intentionally trolling, or lack the competence to edit in the areas in which you're currently editing. Wikipedia is an reference work, not a social experiment or an online community, and you've been warned repeatedly about your regularly wasting the time of other editors. If you have a genuinely constructive policy proposal, discuss it with other editors before proposing it; I strongly advise against doing so, as given your recent remarks such as "There are articles about living people which are sometimes almost entirely based on secondary sources", "I do not believe that you have an email displayed on your Wikipedia homepage" and the screed here you clearly lack even the most basic understanding of how Wikipedia, Wikimedia and MediaWiki operate. If you want to contribute constructively to Wikipedia articles, you're very welcome to continue to participate, but if you continue intentionally disrupting Wikipedia you will be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. If you do choose to continue to participate here, I strongly suggest you read this page—which is a core policy of Wikipedia. &#8209; Iridescent 18:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)