Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:30, 22 June 2016

User:Chetblong/bar

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

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 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 June 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 October 2014 December 2014 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May2016

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

Came across your User:Coffee/RFA-standards

It's completely awesome. Lays out a lot of common-sense re:RFAs. Am "stealing" it to have around. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Zombie candidate DS

Just letting you know that {{NOINDEX}} does not work for the article namespace and the page has been indexed by Google and other search engines. - NQ (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick Notice

I recreated User talk:24.156.211.43 to issue him a warning. Peter Sam Fan 13:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

ARCA

A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (June 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

GMO RfC

Hi Coffee. Thanks for your warning to Petrarchan. I'm not sure if you've seen the conversation on The Wordsmith's page where petrarchan was already given a warning there even before making those posts you redacted, but this is now their final final final warning in addition to your broad warnings to all those involved. I'm not going to push for further action at this time, but just wanted to be sure you're aware that petrarchan has had a warning in some fashion from you, Laser Brain, and The Wordsmith at this point.

What I'm mostly here for is to ask about a recent new editor to the GMO RfC, P-Pal88. They have 9 edits so far, and they somehow managed to stake out a position in the GMO RfC (their last edit) only one hour after their very first edit. Generally, accounts like this would get something akin to an SPA or very few edits tag since these tends to be socks (though not always). Not sure how that one should be handled if at all, so I just thought I'd see what you think. I don't see anything at this time that would justify a specific checkuser, but we do have a few topic-banned users. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

About that new editor, I just looked at their other contributions, and (since I've had a lot of experience with each of the topic-banned editors) there is no behavioral similarity that I can see. They also made their comment after the watchlist notice went out. I'm not commenting on anything beyond that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree now that I've looked more too. It's mostly just the new account and very quickly entering into the GMO RfC that's a red flag for me. I don't see direct evidence of a sock. I'm not that concerned since they're saying an opinion more than discussing the content and related sources, but it's worth the quick question to Cofee nonetheless. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC question

You are right, this is the place to go with questions, thank you.

It seems that there was an addition made to the goal of the RfC, but it happened by default, and sheer oversight, not through the formal process of consideration it deserved.

This RfC is the third in a string that seek to summarize RS on the safety of GM foods/crops. I was active in the last RfC, and it was labor intensive to the extreme. For each proposal, an enormous amount of research must go into checking sources, how they are being summarized, and ultimately how they are weighed in light of the available RS as a whole, to know whether they align with PAGs, and especially with the complex WP:MEDRS in this case. I am still looking at the way sources are used in Proposition 1, and am only halfway through. Given what we are already asked to do, checking the additional sources that come with the "scope creep" is in my mind asking a bit too much, and the question remains whether this addition is a truly neutral one to begin with.

Considering the rules, it is unclear how admins will judge the RfC with additional content added to many proposals. I have to assume the admins will not extend the RfC scope beyond the content under consideration (detailed in the first paragraph of the RfC instructions). It seems the best idea would be to ask the authors of the proposals to trim the excess. We can have a separate RfC about public perception and bans if that language is ever hotly contested. Unlike the safety consensus, perception and bans has received little discussion; there is no justification for its addition to this RfC.

This additional content came about through no formal process, more of a collective blind spot, but it is impacting this very important RfC. It is not too late to remedy. At the very least, it should be clarified to editors how admins judging the results will consider the scope creep in the final analysis. Will proposals (and accompanying arguments) receive less weight for including the additional content? Will proposals and arguments supporting them receive more weight if they closely follow the RfC instructions, and keep the scope to the safety statement? Hope this makes sense. Thank you, petrarchan47คุก 02:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: Thoughts? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. It strikes me this may be something for ArbCom, perhaps a clarification request? petrarchan47คุก 05:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

DRV Comment

I was wondering whether you could expound why you closed down the discussion as no consensus to restore this article here. TIA TushiTalk To Me 06:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kagundu: Read S Marshall and DGG's comments, then combine what they're saying, the result is that there are no actual sources that could be considered acceptable for restoration. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I read through the discussion as I also participated in it. I think @S Marshall: was arguing for a restoration of the article given the new sources cited in the sandbox where it was recreated. Did you also take into consideration what the other editors said? TushiTalk To Me 02:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I always read and consider all opinions before closing a discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge performed

Hi Coffee: Way back in January, you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Miss World hosts and invited artists as a merge. I have (finally) merged the content to Miss World § Miss World hosts and invited artists. This was opposed by the nominator for deletion, against the consensus of the discussion, who redirected the page without performing any merge, stating in edit summaries that there's nothing to merge (diff, diff). However, I disagree, performed the merge, formatted the table, and have begun adding sources to verify the content.

As the closer, if you're not interested, this is understandable, but writing to request assistance with further verifying and improving the section of the article. I've also notified the two merge !voters who participated in the discussion about all of this. Cheers! North America 09:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI / DYK

Given the tonal direction the thread has taken, I think it's appropriate if I disengage from the discussion at DYK regarding Howe Street Stairs (and, by extension Talk:Howe Street Stairs); I'm concerned, given how unexpectedly quickly it escalated and the sudden introduction of a demand I permanently quit WP due to my position in the step count vs linear distance debate on that short article, my continued participation may result in my blocking by the other party.
Since you've commented on it previously, and I directed a comment back to you, out of a preponderance of caution I thought it appropriate to let you know I wasn't checking the thread further so you didn't think I was ignoring any subsequent comment you made. I apologize, in advance, for bothering you with this note, it is not something I would normally do but this is the first time I've encountered a situation of this type as a participant. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)