User talk:Coffee

Merry Christmas!

Hello Coffee: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Coffee!!

Hello Coffee: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Cause you are! Happy new year, Coffee.

Drmies (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Dzmitry Baskau‎ RM

Hi, re: closing this RM. I'll note that nobody actually opposed the move. (The only other contribution to the discussion by @Andrewa: was listed as a "comment".) Per WP:RMNOMIN, the article should be moved as requested. 162 etc. (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think it was a good close. Obviously had I !voted it would have been oppose. There was no case for a move. Citing individual sources proves nothing, as I said. I was hoping that some valid argument would be provided one way or the other, that is why I relisted. You didn't seem to understand this. We needed to move on.

Had I closed the RM rather than relisting, I would have been obliged to discard your nomination rationale, and close as not moved. I did not want to do that, as I thought it would have invited a move review, but I think it would have led to the same result eventually. Andrewa (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@162 etc.: Wikipedia discussions, including RMs, are not tally votes (WP:NOTVOTE). Andrewa's comment was clearly in disagreement with your reasoning for attempting the move, and his arguments were equally sound. Your response was to repeat what you had already stated with different wording, meaning the discussion did not progress towards a consensus. With the lack of additional participation, after the relist, it is a clear no consensus close. Feel free to open it up to a further review if you do not agree with this assessment but given my nearly 15 years of experience here, I don't see this close being overturned. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andrewa:@Coffee:Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm a bit puzzled at this one. The "citing individual sources proves nothing" argument seems strange to me, as the entire concept of WP:COMMONNAME is to use the name most used by reliable sources. I know that Google searches vary for each user, but mine shows 6 times more results for "Dmitri Baskov" vs. "Dzmitry Baskau" (153k vs. 2490.) Why should we prefer a transliteration that is demonstrably less common? 162 etc. (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your Google searches are certainly relevant. But that's a different sort of evidence to just citing individual ghits.

Not sure what to recommend. Move review is IMO unlikely to overturn the close, and is not the place to introduce new arguments. I would be inclined to invoke Andrew's Principle and leave it as is were it not for the BLP issue.

In many ways the horse has bolted. But that should never prevent us from improving Wikipedia.

I would like to hear more from the closer. It was a good close IMO, but perhaps a reopen would not hurt. If it does happen, suggest you listen more carefully to what others (myself in that case) are saying. From experience, that is not your strong suit. And this is not to raise any behavioural issue, just advice intended to make your (valued) contributions even more productive. Andrewa (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@162 etc.: I have zero issue with a new RM being opened. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

in friendship

Quick facts in friendship ...

January songs

in friendship

Close

Thank you for being around! - Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics was on the Main page (DYK) and even made the stats. - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Always a true pleasure to see you here. I hope your 2022 is full of adventure and love! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks you, both happened on vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick facts frozen ...

February songs

frozen

Close

now continued + my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I took the pic in 2009. It was on the German MP yesterday, with the song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ulas Hayes

Hello Coffee. I saw your name at the top of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement participant list and was wondering if you would be willing to help sort out an article I came across. It's not written in an encyclopedic way, the history is full of usernames (some blocked) that suggest a close connection with the subject, and the referencing isn't great, but it looks like it might be salvageable as an article if some editors with subject matter expertise spent some time on it. What do you think? 28bytes (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@28bytes: I'll take a look at it today or tomorrow and let you know what I think! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@28bytes: After a thorough review of books and newspapers during the time period he was alive, I see essentially no national scale coverage of him. There are some small quotes from him regarding things other than himself, and there are some small passing mentions (of him listed with others), but that's about it. Even regional coverage is lacking. If the person who created this article knows of sources out there that aren't online that's the only way I would see this passing GNG. As it stands, I unfortunately think this should go up for AFD. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thank you for taking the time to dig into it, I appreciate it. 28bytes (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@28bytes: Anytime! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

King William's Town/Qonce RM

Hi Coffee,

Regarding your close, could you clarify how you considered the Google Scholar results, as contrary to your close these demonstrate a current preponderance of sources that are stating King William's Town in reference to current events? BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I found particular strength in this argument by @Amakuru:: "Local usage has changed, and that should predominate over "Google scholar" results, which do not reflect common usage, particularly on the ground." Essentially, while those academic sources hold some weight, a city is not something that is of purely (or anywhere near mostly) academic importance. So, there isn't a clear policy backed reason why we should be considering scholarly sources over news sources to determine what the current common name is for our readers. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain how you found strength in that argument; specifically, what policy it aligned to better than the alternative arguments that allowed you to find strength in it, particularly in the context of the unrebutted claim that WP:MPN requires "common global usage" rather than local? BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I understand you have a very firm opinion about this, and you clearly believe your reading of policy is the most correct (if I was in your position I would likely be of the same mind)... and I have explained above how I found strength in Amakuru's argument. My close is simply a summary of the community's view during the discussion, on the policies at hand regarding this given article, nothing more. - From what I saw in the discussion, the WP:MPN claim was rebutted (by multiple users). However, you held the viewpoint that scholarly sources should be weighted very heavily as the metric to measure "common global usage". But others who came to the discussion, even after you made that point, mostly did not agree with that take (and pointed to the broader Google searches as evidence). - The majority of participants' views, that the criteria for WP:NAMECHANGES had been met (via reliable sourcing), was not so unreasonable as to be discounted and weighted disproportionately against your and Colin M's view of MPN & scholarly sources (I only mention you both, as your arguments were the strongest against moving the article [others' hinged on the overall usage, disregarding the requirement for weighting sources after a name change, and so therefore were not found to be backed by policy]). Indeed, me doing so would have surmounted to a WP:SUPERVOTE. So, while you definitely made very strong points, the WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS was not in support of your view of policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that you discounted the "oppose" !votes apart from mine and Colin M's, as they did not provide suitable evidence to support their position? And that when you did this, you found that counting all of the "support" !votes against the remaining "oppose" !votes allowed you to determine a consensus?

I will note, however, that I am not seeing any rebuttal of the claim that we are required to consider global, not local, coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I did not conduct a head count, but I did discount voices or opinions that did not have a policy backing them (this is specifically what is to be done to determine consensus in all cases). When all of that was said and done, I came to the determination I have explained. Yes, global coverage is one of the requirements of MPN, but your view of what substantiates global coverage is not the only one I had to take into consideration. This is what I just explained above. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't mean to imply any impropriety in how you determined the result after you weighted; whether by a headcount (which is permitted, once weighting has been applied) or by other methods. What I am asking for clarity on is how you weighted and who you weighted?

Thank you for clearing up the global coverage question; I believed you had assessed on local coverage, based on your quote of Amakuru, but based on what you have said that is not the case. BilledMammal (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I know you're not trying to be difficult, but I honestly don't know how to be any clearer in explaining what arguments I did and didn't weigh. I don't particularly feel warm with having to do an itemized list of everyone in the discussion, as head counting is not how I read consensus... it's about the strength of the arguments, as viewed by the participants and as weighted against policy. At this stage, I don't believe there is an argument presented I haven't addressed. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to be a little clearer with what I am asking. From what I understand, you discounted most !votes by those opposing the move, such as Tobby1's, on the basis that the evidence they provided wasn't suitable - and that seems like a reasonable decision. However, you didn't appear to do the same for the !votes supporting the move who had similar issues with their evidence. For example, P.I. Ellsworth merely asserted that there are "many, many books, news articles and scholarly sources that use the new name "Qonce"" (not most, but many), without providing evidence for this, and with many aspects of this assertion being disproven later in the discussion - it would seem to me that that !vote, as well as similar ones, would also need to be discounted. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If your question is: do I believe that P.I. Ellsworth's views (and similar ones) were not backed by policy, and should be discounted? The answer is no. The arguments made by Ellsworth and others, asserting that the necessary coverage had been met (using links to google searches [which the commenting participants indicated they had reviewed] and weighting more recent sourcing), and that such sourcing need not include purely academia, are entirely within a reasonable reading of policy (indeed, nowhere on MPN or otherwise is it stated that only a Google scholar search may be used to determine "global coverage"). This is much different than those who misunderstood what COMMONNAME required when dealing with recent name changes, and who were essentially arguing an entirely invalid position that disagreed with current policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I would note that the claim they have reviewed them is dubious, given that they asserted that the Google Scholar and Google Books results supported the move, rather than opposing it as was later proven, but that you for clarifying. BilledMammal (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Howl at the Moon Piano Bar

If I may ask, is there a reason why you relisted the requested move discussion for Howl at the Moon Piano Bar? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Article

I believe it was you Mr or Ms Coffee that changed the edit there was no need for a war, hell you even took off where the guy was born and where he went to school even though there are various interviews all over television and the internet that tells you where he was born what sports is played...now I'll give you that wikipedia edits or not my strong point I'm but better with broadcast media... there is probably a higher power that I can go to in this regard but since this seems to be your thing and you're so adamant about having your version even though it's not complete. I will digress you have at it, enjoy! Nancy O'Dell (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nancy O'Dell: Our policies on biographies of living people is very strict, and this has been explained to you on your talk page. You were told to provide reliable sources for your repeated additions of net-worth to the article, and you were told to provide an email to verify your ID so that we can be certain Nancy O'Dell is not being impersonated. Unfortunately, you have done neither. If you have sources to provide please feel free to do so, but please be aware your account will need to be restricted until we can confirm your identity. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Well restricting me is fine..not really sure what that means or entails but like I said I'm more of a broadcast journalist anyway so.. Wikipedia is not my thing I'll let you Wikipedia "experts" have at it.. As far as sources go there are plenty of sources to tell you where people were born where they went to school and what their particular net worth is which is something I know about since that's what it's something I do and talk about so.. like I said the Wiki world is yours have at it enjoy!!! Nancy O'Dell (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nancy O'Dell: if you know of plenty of sources then there should be no issue in providing them. Links to those sources is all that has been requested; merely saying sources exist does not allow readers to verify our content. I welcome you to read through our help content until an email has been sent from you wherein we can verify you are actually Nancy O'Dell. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Just saw your user talk page pop up in my watchlist and thought to myself "I haven't seen Coffee around for a while" and thought I'd pop in to say hello.

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Hello! I hope you are doing well. I’ve been in and out of activity over the past year as I’ve had several external projects I’m working on. How have you been? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm doing okay. Busy with the semester starting and all, but otherwise can't complain. Our family has come through the pandemic relatively unscathed, so that's a bonus. Hope things are well for you and yours! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: That's fantastic to hear! Good luck with the semester; I'm sure you will do well! My wife and I are doing well, thank you for asking. Been busy (as always) with some projects off-wiki, so have been off and on the past few months, but always good to see you around! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Garuda Indonesia Flight 035

Hi Coffee -- wanted to ask about your closure at Talk:Garuda Indonesia Flight 035. While I agree that it would have been helpful to get more participation, I'm not sure the sole oppose !vote provided a reasonable rationale to reject the request. The proposal, and the !support vote (mine) noted that the proposed name was both the accurate and common one. The oppose asked if there was evidence for that, was provided it, and did not provide any counter evidence for a different name. It would be one thing if the oppose !vote was demonstrating counter sourcing to look at, but this was not the case. Appreciate your thoughts, thank you! --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yaksar: The issue for me, as someone impartial to this, is there (as you said) was very limited participation over ~45 days... and there wasn't a source comparison done in the discussion. The voice in opposition presented a reasonably strong issue that a sole source did not prove one or the other was the most WP:COMMONNAME, and there wasn't necessarily an adequate response to this (with linked evidence [i.e. Google search result hits etc]). So, I felt it would put me in the position of making a WP:SUPERVOTE to close it any other way than no consensus. I did choose to say it essentially can be immediately reopened, but I would also be open to undoing the close and relisting a third time (to provide time at least for a source comparison, etc, to be done). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a fair explanation. I would still say, even if neither side fully demonstrated a common name, the remaining argument of "one was the name of the airline and one was not" remains unrebutted and a fairly common sense rationale (barring the oppose !vote providing sourcing showing otherwise), but I do get not wanting to make what could be seen as a supervote. It looks like the nominator has since been banned (what a world!), so I may just make it a separate nomination down the line.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yaksar: That sounds like a good path forward. Thank you for your understanding! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Bob Proctor

	Premature Removal
	Hi, I was correct in being the first person on Wikipedia to list Bob Proctor as deceased and sent you a screenshot of the email from his organization. I would like whatever credit for correctly editing his biography, please. Thanks, Chuck TheChuckDay (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @TheChuckDay: Please read WP:TRUTH. Also, your edit is forever in the article's edit history, so don't expect any further acknowledgement of your mistake from our over-worked, under-appreciated volunteers. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best

I'm sorry to see that you have decided to part ways with Wikipedia, but there comes a time when we must move on and carry on with a new chapter of our lives. Wishing you all the best, my favourite morning beverage! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm late to comment because I wasn't ready to write anything as I didn't want to believe the note I received. I second what k6ka has said. I will thoroughly miss having you around on-wiki but look forward to staying in contact elsewhere. You and your contributions were valued more than you can know; you were are a damn fine editor, a pleasure to work with, one of the most policy-versed editors I know, and you always did what you believed was best for the project; I don't think we could ask for anything more of a volunteer. I am sorry that things turned out the way they did here and that you found yourself in this position. That said, I am also happy/excited for you on the new journeys you are taking off-wiki. Keep in touch, TSD TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

  I also know that it was one of your missions to get MLK over the FA bar. I hope that this happens soon and invite anyone interested to participate. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Precious anniversary

Quick facts Seven years! ...

Precious

Seven years!

Close

Coffee, I'm sad having to miss you, but do what's best for you. I began translating Unita Blackwell into German yesterday, in memory, but wish I had done it sooner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Fifteenth Anniversary on Wikipedia!

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Coffee! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Chris Troutman (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Since your retired, you might not get this for a little while, but

Hey, Coffee. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, thank you for your service to the US through the Air Force. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Coffee! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)