User talk:CoffeeCrumbs

Hi! I noticed that you previously expressed an interest in seeing February 2013 nor'easter renamed to Winter Storm Nemo. You might be interested to know that there is currently an official vote regarding a move at the article's talk page. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

You may be interested in joining this project; it's only just starting up, but will become more active as we move into trustee election season. BilledMammal (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like your cool userpage. All you need, really. Bishonen | tålk 17:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not a fan of excess! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was not aware of the limit. I like that word, which I found appropriate. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's part of discovery in trials, to clarify stuff before a trial. And the limits are there to keep dudes like the editor in question from bludgeoning their adversaries with a massive coatrack! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, thank you for your advice of communicating with the editor more softly, which I'll try to follow.

However here we are again at the situation Talk:25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes#Russian claims, where the editor is rejecting the context of the Russian claims given by the RSs and is advocating to either leave those claims as is ("That may indeed be what the sources you used say. But that doesn't guarantee inclusion, nor balance, nor due weight"), or to add own context. Which is, in my opinion, is against WP:RS, which tells us specifically to use secondary sources, and giving context to facts is what distinguishes secondary sources from primary, and the context we should add should be not ours, but RSs. Maybe you can advice on how to communicate that, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not in expert in all the sources in this area, so I'm probably not the best one to reach out to. But if you're having issues with Alexis or another editor, I'd recommend stepping out, getting a cup of tea or whatever relieves stress, and if you still want to do some editing, look around on a fun or silly topic. Yes, getting these things right is important, but when you battle too long, it starts to get built into your mindset, and we're all better off when we avoid that. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, regarding the topicban, while I don't accept using tg and Russian state-controlled media as sources, the editor is quite active in the area and can produce productive contribution if those false balance edits could be taken care of. Maybe a limit to reverts until the consensus is reached on a talk page could serve the purpose and satisfy those who want to preserve productive contributions, instead of a TB? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my feeling as well, but the continued use of Telegram is really a deal-breaker for me. Productive or not, these Telegram inclusions are raising the temperature of a part of Wikipedia that is boiling over and does a disservice to readers. I don't think there's consensus for a topic ban though; admins seem to be nope-ing out of jumping into that one one way or the other. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you left a comment on a user’s unblock request stating that their attempts to revert album sales’ inclusion on Ariana Grande discography did not seem to align with MOS or the WikiProject Albums one at WP:ALBUMSTYLE. I’ve opened an RFC for this debate and I would appreciate if possible if you could leave a comment regarding your thoughts on the matter if possible. No worries if not, thanks! Flabshoe1 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CoffeeCrumbs,

I find your recent edits puzzling. For some reason, you are spending your time going to the User talk pages of blocked editors, making comments and trying to give them advice. While your activity on Wikipedia might have spanned years, you have a relatively small number of edits and I don't think you are in the position of offering advice to editors who are probably angry and frustrated. In fact, depending on your remarks, it could be seen as antagonistic or grave-dancing which, in some cases, can result in a sanction.

I recommend that you spend less time talking to editors who are blocked from participating on this project and more time improving content. Work on some articles that are of interest to you, dig up some useful references, help build the project instead of chatting with editors who've lost their right to edit here except to appeal their block. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note! An admin friend of mine always bugs me to try and get me more involved in the project rather than my usual pattern of mostly being interested in the occasional governance issue. But I had seen the backlog in the requests and a lot of questions were going unanswered due to the heavy workload, so I decided I could pitch in a bit more by answering questions and clarifying matters for people who found themselves in a bit of hot water. To my surprise, it felt pretty good those times I successfully talked an editor into dropping the stick and helped them get unblocked, and I won't lie; the thanks messages for many of those replies from admins suggested to me that I was being constructive.

I certainly had no idea I was coming off as antagonistic, so since that's the perception -- and I don't doubt it given your very good reputation as an admin -- I will back off from interacting with blocked editors, and default back to my typical pattern of quiet indolence. This is the closest I've gotten to even an informal warning over the last 12 years, despite being involved in some pretty tense discussions, and I certainly don't intent to break that pattern. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol I'm from Cincinnati. Maybe I should change my user. :D Valereee (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnatus would be a great 'nom de guerre' for an admin! OK, he may not have been all for the common man, but we have few example in history of people who, when given nearly absolute power for a specific task, happily and voluntarily relinquish it when they've accomplished the task. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CoffeeCrumbs,

I noticed on User talk:TahaKahi you stated that there were 60 million articles on the English Wikipedia. While there might be 60 million pages (including talk pages, project pages, categories, etc.), there are actually only 6 million articles although it is edging up to 7 million at this point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, brain fart on my end added a zero! Though I think the general point I was making stands; even the worst 1% of Wikipedia articles represents an astonishing number of articles that would be a monumental project to deal with as a block. Was just trying to explain the consequences of WP:OTHERSTUFF with an example as I didn't think the other editor quite understood what people were getting at. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]