User talk:Cohaf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[change source]

Hello! I noticed that you may have come here from another Wikipedia, so you know a little about how things work here. I hope you like it here and decide to stay! Here are some links to help you adjust:

There's a lot to do here. Most of it is writing articles that do not exist yet, which you can do by translating from other Wikipedias, but have a look around and see what you want to do. Thanks for joining us, and you know how to contact me if you need any help. BRP ever 07:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Striking Comments[change source]

While I do not disagree with the vote you struck out on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TDKR_Chicago_101_2's RfA. Striking any comment that is not your own, should only be done by an Admin on RfD's and other general votes and by Crat's on RfA's and such. We need to be the ones judging the validity of those votes, and if we see they are struck, we may guess another admin / crat done them if we did not pay close attention, and not review them for validity, and if the policy is being applied correctly. In this particular case the outcome of the RfA was the same, but it could make a difference on other decisions. -- Enfcer (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Enfcer: Sorry this time, will promise not to do it next round. I'll be more circumspect next round and will ask more. In addition, I had also started a discussion about the validity of votes at Simple Talk, hope you can comment. Apologies.--Cohaf (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You beat me to the Simple Talk discussion. I can see the argument going either way. I figured this would be a good time to get clarification, is the reason I brought up the concern on the note while closing out the RfA. As far as striking comments, that is not a big deal, if we are doing our jobs when closing out votes, so its more just a procedural point. -- Enfcer (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Enfcer:. Yes, I also think so, I will take more care in doing stuff here as I'm too used to strike out votes elsewhere where I have the rights to do so. Sorry for the momentarily but serious lapse of judgement here. --Cohaf (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

IRC[change source]

Do you use IRC? Thanks, Vermont (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Vermont: I am still finding a way to use IRC. Should set up one by this week. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Masturbusing upsurge[change source]

Hi, Cohaf. I wanted to be sure you understood why I declined the QD on this article. It wasn't because I thought the subject was notable. It was because WP:QD#A4, the QD option for things that aren't notable, can only be used for "people, groups, companies, products, services or websites". This article is about an event. Since events aren't covered by QD:A4, it had to go to RFD (which I see that you did). If you have any questions, feel free to let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6:.Yes, I re-read it carefully and yes, it sadly doesn't cover events. I knew you did not decline it based on thinking that it is notable. Now we just need to let the Rfd run it's course. This is a real marginal case as if the author uses "Online hashtag of Masturbusing upsurge" and phrase the article in someway that is on the hashtag then A4 will apply. But IMO, really a good article for wikinews but not here. Just noting, I didn't put QD decline to protest anything, but just to note that the article had been QD and declined (which makes it ineligible for future QD) to save time for sysops as some may pop into the RFD to slap another tag with the same reason at times (based on my experience in other wikis). This will waste even more time for all. Best Regards and thanks for telling me all these, --Cohaf (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Procedure[change source]

To note.

  1. The person who reports an emergency, even if it turns out to be a joke, can not be blamed.
  2. A person who does not report a threat while having the information to do so can be prosecuted.

--Eihel (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eihel:Yes I agree with first one, thanks for your alertness. For second, I'll refer to en:WP:EMERGENCY. And I do note that you had went to Stewards and revi advised you to email to be safe but most likely plain vandalism or gibberish.

--Cohaf (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I also think that there is school behind this case, but I relayed the info, it is the most important. --Eihel (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Eihel:. Yes, I fully agree with that. I don't think is a school IP however.--Cohaf (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Your comments on User talk:124.180.99.3[change source]

Your comment "Off to enWP for you" was not appropriate. Even if a user leaves a rude comment, that doesn't mean it's OK to be rude in return.

Besides that, anyone can ask for this project to be closed. It happens periodically. The proposals have failed so far, but not by a "considerable margin" as you indicated. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

They failed by a considerable margin. Note that a proposal to close a project requires much more than a majority; it requires consensus, which was no where near achieved. Vermont (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6:In retrospect, I understood that that is inappropriate and will not do it anymore. Per Vermont, they failed by a considerable margin and any new proposal will need to be very convincing not to be deleted as a spurious proposal. I will take that into consideration and sorry for the poor language choice.--Cohaf (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
To add, per meta:Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_Wikipedia_(3) and

Additionally, given that Oppose !votes greatly outnumber Support !votes, it cannot really even be said that the community has developed a consensus to recommend that LangCom close this project.

. This is they failed by a considerable margin, I'm just using Langcom words. And also

Please note that in the future, consistent with the above, requests to close this project that are based on "no language code" or "not different enough from English" may be closed speedily. Requests to close this project that are based on "inactivity" or "vandalism" will probably also be closed speedily, unless things change pretty radically at Simple English Wikipedia.

. The IP is exactly making these points which of course if they choose to start a proposal, they will fail speedily. I acknowledge my words choice is bad, but no malice involved. Can you give me a chance to rephrase rather than undo it? Thanks. --Cohaf (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected on the margin. As far as your comments on the IP talk page, you are welcome to redo them. The text you added was fairly short, so you can either retype it or copy the parts you want from page history. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6:"Oh yes, don't try to ask for this project to be closed, the community by large endorsed this project by a considerable margin. Off to enWP for you. Bye." I'm finding trouble on how to make it more civil. Can you give me some advices? Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I would definitely remove the last two sentences. I think I pretty much covered that by suggesting that they might prefer enwiki. Actually, though, I don't think your first part is needed, either, because we can't tell people not to suggest closing this wiki (as I mentioned above). Sometimes it's just not necessary to pile on with more comments. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6:. Duly noted, admit that this is unnecessary pile on. I'll refrain from adding more things to the IP talkpage. Sorry for this. Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Untitled[change source]

Hi Cohaf. About the DiDi article. It is a draft and I cannot find a sandbox. I was about to find some sources at some point. Could you point me to a sandbox or draft for the DiDi article? Maybe, the DiDi article could possibly be moved to a draft space for anyone to work on and improve. 2A00:23C0:D500:2601:4038:BBCB:5065:6651 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Replied at IP talkpage. --Cohaf (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

New article Gendarmerie[change source]

That's it, I don't have a penchant for the theme of this article. I found it interesting, as you wrote in irc yesterday, that it is in WP. To avoid an RfD, I have a little completed the article, but there are gaps. This new consistency puts it in safety. Now you can complete it as you please and when you want. The Italian and French versions are interesting to complete it. Cordially. --Eihel (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @Eihel:. Thanks much for the expansion. I think now the article is quite safe from deletion. However, as I'm not that familiar with the topic, I'll abstain from patrolling it. Will do some enhancements. Thanks for the effort! Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Super Bowl[change source]

I can only imagine this edit was a mistake. It is suggesting that the New England Patriots always win and is vandalism. :) IWI (chat) 00:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @ImprovedWikiImprovment:Hey, thanks for telling me. I'm not in US so didn't know it us the case. I'm considered the edit as an unexplained removal of content not vandalism. I thought it is the case and should have researched before reverting. If the person who changed it include an explanation like you did, I won't revert. Yes, now it's a mistake on my part. Thanks for the heads up.--Cohaf (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

spaces[change source]

  • Actually, the double spacing before the stub notice was deliberate. The stub is a meta-communication of a different type from the article prose, and maybe the spacing helps less able readers to distinguish it. There is no guidance relevant to the issue, so both forms are permissible. Cheers, Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC).
  • @Macdonald-ross:I see, thanks for explanation. Shall I revert it?--Cohaf (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not necessary; just didn't want you to think I made changes without reason. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Macdonald-ross:. Nope, I won't. =).--Cohaf (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2019-07[change source]

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2019-08[change source]

User:Cohaf-public[change source]

Wanting to verify that this account is yours :-) --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 03:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Surely the global userpage of the alternate account could have evidenced as much? Hiàn (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Thegooduser:yes, it's my valid alternate account. Thanks for alertness. It's verified via meta userpage and my meta talkpage. @Hiàn:Thanks for the helpful reply. Appreciate it.--Cohaf (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2019-09[change source]

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2019-10[change source]

Thanks for your warm welcome![change source]

Your assumption is correct and I came from the English Wikipedia because of my poor English. The English Wikipedia is quite consummate now so there is little to do there, but the Simple English Wikipedia still needs much effort. A planetree leaf (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@A planetree leaf:.Yes, we need much help in content creation here. Do remember to attribute (1st link in the welcome) and also use simpler language (Wikipedia:Basic_English_combined_wordlist). Also, do add Categories to your articles when needed. That's all you need for now. We need and appreciate your help. Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2019-11[change source]

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2019-12[change source]

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2019-13[change source]

Cyberpunk character discussion[change source]

Thanks for undoing my change. I meant to put that category on the article, not the discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2019-16[change source]