User talk:Coffee joe

This is Coffee joe's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

first things first; i'm not on here much so i may not see what you say for a few months. that being said...

i prefer to keep a conversation on a single talk page, so if you leave a comment here, watch this page. if i left a comment on your page, please reply on your page. i will be watching it.

sometimes my communication style gets a little concise, and people have mistaken this for rudeness. please be assured, if i am being rude, you will know it.

also, i'm a much easier going person if you're easy going. i know i'm fallible and if you feel i've stepped on your toes, say so calmly, logically and courteously. otherwise i may just remove your comment without further explanation. if i do, you may rephrase you post, but please don't just put it back the way it was. it won't get you anywhere.

thanks

Optometry

i think you should go back and look at the edits you reverted. they may not be right, but they're definitely not vandalism. what made you say they were?Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

after further review of the policies and community consensus re: vandalism, i have to agree. i initially considered it vandalism because it was a deletion of a large piece of the article that outlined the qualifications of optometrists. this appeared to be malicious to me at the time (and in fact, i'm not entirely certain it was not) because many in the ophthalmological community do not respect optometry and even resent it. while i acknowledge that it may have been in good-faith, i do still believe it was an inappropriate edit. i also acknowledge that i was hasty to label it vandalism. Coffee joe (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no worries, and if you think they should go, i have no problem with that either.i was just a little puzzled by the vandalism label. i have also noticed the antagonism in that discussion. are you an o.d.?Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm an optician and work for an o.d. add it is only some in opthalmology that have that sentiment. our practice has very fruitful and mutually respectful relationships with many ophthalmologists with whom we refer patients to one another and even work in cooperation with in the same room. i feel that's the way it should be. but there is still a contingent in this part of the medical community (on both sides) that doesn't see room for coexistence. Coffee joe (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Joe...... As an ophthalmologist, faculty member, surgeon, teacher at the busiest Eye Hospital in the U.S., I can only hope that you are an optometrist. If you are not, you don't know how much damage you are causing; if you are an optometrist, I understand your agenda.......I think it is ethically impaired, but I understand your motivations.... It is essential that patients in this country know that there is a distintion between a surgically / medically trained M.D. / ophthalmologist vs. an optometrist. It is that simple. Patients, as a whole do not realize that the term "eye doctor" means quite different things.

As for Wikipedia, I challenge you to tell me ANYTHING I wrote that is untrue or accurate... Isn't Wikipedia striving for legitimacy? If so, I challenge you to tell me ANYTHING that I wrote that was inaccurate.

Coexistence is not the issue. You may find it arrogant, but the reality is that there is NOT equality; optometrists and ophthalmologists are as different as a Nurse practitioner and a surgeon. It is THAT different..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.30.41 (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anonymous ip address,

had you read the paragraph above your rant, you would know that i am not an optometrist, and according to your own logic, must therefore not have some sinister agenda. you on the other hand have made your agenda of belittling a profession that you seem to perceive as a threat for some reason, quite clear. of course the two aren't equal. two things that are equal are exactly the same. equivalence and coexistence have nothing to do with one another. that being said i find your nurse practitioner/surgeon analogy to be false. the actual, not analogous but just fact of the mater, relationship between the two professions is: optometrist = primary care provider | ophthalmologist = specialist. what is wrong with that?

please don't rant at me in the future. Coffee joe (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secret of NIMH

Did you read the edit summary that said "archive pre-2008 conversations". It is, after all, late 2008 - there was also an ARCHIVE box that showed the entire archive BMW(drive) 14:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I offered a polite reply that helps you learn about Wikipedia. Re-read it with a bit of a different tone, and you'll see that your comment is waaay out of line. If you didn't want a polite response, then DISCUSS the possible "blanking" before you REVERT the "blanking". That's how things work. Snarkiness such as the message you left on my talk page is not appreciated. Besides, that was someone else's talk page, not yours. BMW(drive) 11:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not responsible for how you wrongly "interpreted" something. I think that what you SEEM to neglect is the big WELCOME at the top of your TALK page, and who put it there. If I was trying to blade you somewhere, would I have been friendly at the same time? I also, on that same person's talk page, defended your actions overall..where does that fit into your equation that I was being less than cordial? How's this, "I'm SORRY you misinterpreted 1 out of 3 of my posts related to you, thus causing you to completely misconstrue the message, and then felt the need to try and call me out about it". I am one of the FIRST people to welcome and help new users...and although we have a policy about "not biting the newbies", how about "not biting those that help the newbies from the start"? You've really put your foot in it on this one, and I am politely suggesting that you back away slowly and, in essence, realize that you have driven away a helpful editor. Please, don't return to my talk page unless it's urgent, and I won't be back on yours. BMW(drive) 11:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just for the record:
from the original conversation

page blanking (almost)?

did you intentionally delete almost all of Talk:The_Secret_of_NIMH? if so, why? Coffee joe (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you could have read the edit summary that said "archive pre-2008 conversations". It is, after all, late 2008 - there was also an ARCHIVE box that showed the entire archive. BMW(drive) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Bwilkins said. I archived all of the pre-2008 conversations to clean up the talk page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was an oversight on my part. i was unfamiliar with the practice of archiving article's talk pages. one more question. why bother archiving such a short talk page even if it is old? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffee joe (talk • contribs) 10:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I think a 2008 post did get archived though. I will agree with you though Coffee Joe, archiving is to "shorten a lengthy discussion page", and that was by no means lengthy and should have remained as is - or at least get consensus to archive first. BMW(drive) 11:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coffee joe, please, let's not just select the bits that support your "argument" and ignore the rest, like when I agree with you ...

from Bwilkins talk

Re: User_talk:Collectonian#page_blanking_.28almost.29.3F
is it gratifying for you to be nasty and belittle people who are still learning? if it was your intention to make me feel inferior, you failed.Coffee joe (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about re-read the post with a different tone. I was politely advising you of what happened so that you, a new user, can understand. I also left you a welcome on your Talk page, so "Welcome". BMW (drive) 11:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i did re-read it, and as i see you're a professional wordsmith, i shouldn't need to explain to you why the tone of it was condescending. while it was on an other user's talk page, i don't understand your implication on my talk page that i should not have responded to it, because it was said to me. i didn't respond on that user's talk page because i didn't want to clutter up her page with a dialogue between you and me. as for my response to what you said, i may be guilty of responding in kind. but the bottom line is, i was having a civil dialogue with a user and got smacked by a third party. while i might have responded in a better way, i do feel that a response was warranted. i'm willing to admit my mistakes and proverbially shake hands. are you? Coffee joe (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not responsible for how you wrongly "interpreted" something. I think that what you SEEM to neglect is the big WELCOME at the top of your TALK page, and who put it there. If I was trying to blade you somewhere, would I have been friendly at the same time? I also, on that same person's talk page, defended your actions overall..where does that fit into your equation that I was being less than cordial? I am one of the FIRST people to welcome and help new users...and although we have a policy about "not biting the newbies", how about "not biting those that help the newbies from the start"? BMW(drive) 11:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to say that the only point i can agree with you on is the cessation of all communication between us. i'm not sure if it's your pride that gets in your way or if you really have no sense of what it is to be courteous vs insulting. a quick review of your talk history indicates that you've left a few editors feeling insulted only to respond that you were being courteous. i offered you an olive branch and you broke it. best of luck in the future. you'll need it with that attitude. Coffee joe (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you need to take a close look at the source of what you say is my history ... I actively patrol WP:WQA, and attempt to mediate civility issues. I also do a lot of vandalism reversion. You don't make a lot of friends doing either because people originally believe you're taking sides. Heck, one guy is still calling me a racist on his talk page, even though he has no knowledge of my family racial mix (and I actually SUPPORTED him in his lingustics-related AN/I). You've sure made a mountain out of a molehill, sir. In your career on Wikipedia, please take some time to learn how to really search for people's contributions, and what people do and stand for here before making accusations~~, and quite honestly making a bit of a fool out of one's self~~. At some point, you're going to take a closer look and realize how wrong you were in this situation, but that doesn't really matter to me. All the best. BMW(drive) 13:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentionally informatory? it's called name calling. besides i thought you weren't coming back to my talk. i also thought i made it clear that i was in direct accord with your stated intention of not coming back to my talk. i was glad to be done with this conversation. you initially inserted your self, without invitation or cause, into a conversation between me and another editor that we managed to resolve with civility without your help, and ever since then you've continued to shovel dirt onto this mountain that you claim is of my construction. i wish you hadn't spoke to me initially, and i wish for you not to speak to me in future. Thank you. Coffee joe (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jackiefightswell

Hello, thanks for contacting WP:AIV about this user. However, please note that you cannot continue issuing escalating warnings to users when they're not currently editing. In this case, you placed the uw-v3, uw-v4 and uw-v4im templates on the user's page after their last edit, and so the user was not blocked. Thanks, Black Kite 11:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i didn't realize that was a no no, but did you bother to look at the user's contribs? there isn't a single legit edit in there. Coffee joe (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also, the reason given was for an apparent vandalism only account. The reason i put the warnings there was to help make the user's history of vandalism more apparent for any future incidents. what would be the correct course of action? Coffee joe (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just warn them as and when they vandalise (i.e. while they're active). Sometimes, people do start off vandalising and then stop when they get warned and end up becoming productive editors. Black Kite 16:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks. Coffee joe (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]