Coffeeandcrumbs

Hello, Coffeeandcrumbs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for quality articles such as Women Disobey, Pasha Patriki, VELD Music Festival, Bob Honey Who Just Do Stuff, for tireless gnomish work such as adding the date format to hundreds of articles, for saving for posterity – user with a delicious name, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Double the award! Congratulations. Feel free to add Gagarin to the WP:Million Award page as well. Kees08 (Talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yoninah, thank you for my first barnstar ever! And thank you for your patient and diligent assistance in getting this going. I should say that just as much credit should go to User:Kees08 without whom this would never have been possible. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

And a special thanks to Cwmhiraeth. Your act of bravery did not go unnoticed!!! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, it appeared to me like you did a lot of the work in planning how to recognize the Apollo 11 anniversary this week, and I wanted to make sure you saw a compliment from a readeronWP:VPM.   (I would have mentioned it where the discussions were but seems like there were many in different places.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

• I agree completely. Great job with the Main page coverage of the 50th anniversary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Joining the chorus: quality job on that project! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Well done, it was a great way to celebrate the anniversary. Stephen 23:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

CaptainEek, this is the best. Thanks! Our coverage of the soviet space programme needs so much improvement. You should join us at Alexei Leonov as we work towards GA. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your work promoting this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey bud, quick note to let you know I was impressed by the move discussion you raised here. It's sorta fascinating how controversial "Death of..." article title moves can be, even when the logic seems obvious. Perhaps all the controversy that surrounds these talks reflects the emotion that surrounds the subject of death and dying. Don't get discouraged if the RM doesn't work. Emotion often trumps reason over the short term. But in the end, the truth will out. NickCT (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

NickCT, I thank you for the kind words. These discussions are difficult but I believe they are important. It is crucial that we question our own preconceptions; objectivity and NPOV are paramount. I always ask myself, what would an alien species who speak perfect English but have no emotions give as the title of this subject? I like to say that we are all biased and we must actively fight that bias. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:ProcrastinatingReader submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

It is my pleasure to commend User:Coffeeandcrumbs for Editor of the Week. C&C has been an editor for 3 years, and in that time they have created, and contributed to, a staggering number of quality and interesting articles. To pick a small selection of their contributions, many of which improve the encyclopaedia's coverage of women, I've particularly enjoyed reading Mae Jemison, Valentina Tereshkova (GAs) and Elizabeth Willing Powel (FA created from scratch). C&C also does tireless work behind the scenes, particularly at WP:ERRORS, WP:ITN and WP:DYK, and has thousands of edits at these venues. C&C is unfailingly polite, helpful, productive, and a model Wikipedian. I hope this award is a fitting recognition of their continuing efforts to improve the encyclopaedia.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 04:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Coffeeandcrumbs,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Recently you said Despite the false claims by the Zionist entity.... This isn't productive language, and you have previously been asked to not use it; as Rosguill eloquently said, terminology that is not used by neutral RS and which inherently expresses the views of one side of the conflict is a recipe for more fighting and less writing.

Will you please replace it with more neutral language? BilledMammal (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that isn’t helping your argument and if you want to discuss Israel then say Israel. You can call it the occupying army or state or whatever where appropriate, as in『as the occupying power in Gaza …』but its name is Israel, ifs army’s name is the IDF, and so on. When you refer to it with pejorative name instead of its actual name you give people a reason to dismiss your point. And they will. If you are unable to not keep your feelings out of your argument then this likely isn’t going to be a topic where you’ll be able to continue editing. nableezy - 19:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was stopping by to say the same thing. Much as referring to Hamas as "the Antisemitic entity" wouldn't be great, using needlessly inflammatory language just makes the discussions more antagonistic than they need to be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would never use the term in Wikivoice. I have not heard any argument that precludes me from using the term in talk pages. It is my personal opinion and it is also factually true. I see no reason to stop using it on the talk pages. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The reason is that people are going to dismiss your viewpoint immediately when the see you using that term. Sure, Israel is factually Zionist and is also factually an entity. The type of entity is a state and its Zionism is yes a defining trait but also not useful for calling something by its name. You make your arguments easier to ignore when you do this. Any person reviewing the discussion is going to gloss over the rest of your comment once they see that, and they will ignore it as hopelessly biased. And if you think I’m saying this because I disagree with your view then review my editing history. Hell review my comment at a similar request back in October. I’m telling you these things not to stop you from being able to be a part of the consensus making process but rather to try to make it so that you remain a part of it and so that your view is taken more seriously. You can believe me or not, up to you, but I hope you consider it. nableezy - 00:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Being unnecessarily inflammatory contributes to the WP:BATTLEGROUND in the topic area. If that behavior continues you'll be topic banned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is your opinion that it is "unnecessarily inflammatory". I believe it is necessary, and it serves a very good and useful purpose to creating a good encyclopedia. It conveys my point of view and avoids allowing the acceptance of settler-colonialism as the norm. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I kinda wish you’d reply to me instead of SFR, I *think* I have a pretty solid record of not supporting settler colonialism, and I’m telling you truthfully that it isn’t helpful to use such terms in talk page discussions. I know for me when I feel like people who hold POVs that I disagree with and who would like to see me banned say Nableezy stop doing something my instinct is to push back. But I’m not one of those people to you, so I hope you’ll consider what I wrote. nableezy - 02:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I would advise you to stop doing unnecessary stuff that might get you topic banned for such trivial reasons. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you could help me improve Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel, an article that I recently created. Thank you and regards,Crampcomes (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Igor Fruman, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Fruman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you were involved in a discussion on Calvin Cheng 4 years ago. Unfortunately, it was never resolved. Would you be able to look at it again please? 218.212.161.224 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I came across an edit summary of yours. While I consider your edit to be productive and good faith, I’m not sure that this is best practice in a contentious area.

Would you consider using a different phrasing in the future? FortunateSons (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, thank you. The edit summary was appropriate. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply