User talk:CoffeeMeAlready

Leave a message at the beep!

Leave comments, feedback, praise and insults here CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi CoffeeMeAlready! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Kleuske (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hugs CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Grumpylawnchair has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. ^†

Possible aspersion casting

Hi CoffeeMeAlready. I wanted to let you know that hinting other editors may be "studio plants or faux-editors shilling on behalf of the corporate interests" without accompanying evidence, as you did here, is not appropriate, especially for an article talk page, where discussion should be limited to improving the article. Since you're a new editor, I suggest you apply this advice to future discussions you may engage in. Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I wasn’t accusing anyone of that. It’s common knowledge that Wikipedia attracts trolls. I don’t have to be a seasoned member to tell you that much. It’s a real problem for these film pages and I’m guessing political pages as well. Thanks for dropping by CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The implication towards other contributors in that thread is palpable, though. Just don't. Save the snark for Reddit. Kleuske (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It actually wasn’t. If anything AGF and stop casting aspersions yourself for onto me for my benign yet very real ‘vaguely-expressed’ concerns. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Lourdes 06:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Accusing other editors of being LTAs, corporate shills, of canvassing, are all not acceptable unless backed by hard evidence at the right noticeboards. Your block is for a week. Once the block expires, do stop this track of arguments. Thank you, Lourdes 06:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes Fair enough. Roger that. Welcome. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

My understanding was that the onus was on us to resolve conflict, and to speak in Wikipedian language and vernacular, citing policy where possible (i.e. like WP:OR), and as much as possible, BEFORE bringing in an admin, or before running to a noticeboard. In the past, we would be accused of WP:Gaming the system by proverbially running to the teacher on the schoolyard at the first sign of trouble.

Most of my experience on Wikipedia harkens back to circa 2005, back in the Wild West days, where we we allowed to be more outspoken. So some old habits die hard.

But I see how, in these days, that makes me come off as a bit of a wonk and, filtered through my no-nonsense terse-style, could be misconstrued as WP:wikilawyering.

As for my personal style, I try to be direct, and real with others, so that I do not inadvertently insult one’s intelligence. I don’t want to treat those around me as I fragile, so my texting style is how I would talk to my friends at a pub. From a place of respect, and candidness.

So it’s never anything personal since I’ve never met anyone here personally. It makes me come off more heated than I mean to be, not helped by my bad English (which is my second language). But I’m working on it! And thanks for reminding me this isn’t my birthland Australia- where being gruff and plain spoken doesn’t come off as a sign of respect (as it would there) but could be seen as unintentionally combative. So I will work on that ☺️ I’m a work-in-progress as a human being.

So I see what you are saying, and where you are coming from now. It looks like much has changed since 2005 when I used to be more into this stuff.lol Maybe because of all the politics pages being hotbeds now for in-fighting? The landscape is a bit more PTSD it feels.

The change in Wikipedian culture I'm seeing now, and learning about, is an welcome evolution of this arbitration process you mention, which like you said now allows for us users to go to the noticeboards to filter these disputes rather than try to solve it ourselves. That certainly takes the edge off these things.

That's simple enough. Knowing that now, I personally feel the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was being blocked for, and will not do it again, and make productive contributions instead-- filtering possible future rows through "the right noticeboards" and presenting the right "hard" evidence there rather than me being quixotic and doing so in the comment sections on the poor page itself. Will certainly save my poor fingers the wear and tear.lol

But rest assured, before I run to these noticeboards when faced with conflict, I will first follow dispute resolution for the editorial disputes and try to resolve it that way.

So, if you still need for me to take a full-week for a time out, then I bring acceptance to that. But with me now sharing all this, then perhaps this block is now unnecessary, or maybe you could at least shorten it by a few days? In any event, I thank you for your time.

Thank you again!

CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block reset and extended for Confirmed block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Coffee, I won't be deciding on your unblock request (as a matter of good form); any other administrator will review and may unblock you at their discretion, without checking with me. Thank you, Lourdes 04:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Roger that ☺️ CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reset your block to be a month long this time. If you create another sock puppet, it will become indefinite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]