This is an archive of past discussions with User:Coffeeandcrumbs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey there! I noticed you changed the date format in the citations on Milena Warthon using WP:MOSNUMscript. As someone who translates Wikipedia articles, I think it's best to leave citation dates in their YYYY-MM-DD format, which, when displayed to the reader, will translate into the correct date format. This is an acceptable use of style (see MOS:DATEUNIFY for access and archive dates). Please reconsider making these changes :]
(For example, 2023-04-03 will automatically display as 3 April 2023, or 3 abril 2023 on eswiki, but if it's written as "3 April 2023", I have to manually rewrite every single citation's date, which is incredibly tedious.) Wracking💬16:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Please assume good faith as I have with you. No, I have no conflict of interest to disclose. I have been editing Wikipedia for years on topics so varied that I can't name them all. But I see you are relatively new (less than 200 edits to your name) and seem to focus almost exclusively on this topic and related pages. Instead of coming to my talk page to accuse me, please respond to the post at Talk:Vladislav_Doronin#SYNTH_and_unreliable_source. Please explain why you are using unreliable sources and synthesis to imply things on a WP:BLP that are not stated even by the sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. This is very important to me.
Just some comments. Exactly because I assume good faith, I asked the question directly. Because some of your edits gave me the impression that only negative facts in Doronin's article were deleted.
Also, I couldn't ignore the fact that you blame me (I hope I'm just wrong) without providing justification - that I'm accusing you, but I asked a question according to wiki rules about COI/PAID issues. (WP:PA: Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.)
Another issue: according to WP:PA comparing the number of edits each of us has can also be considered a form of personal attack (I hope you are not claiming your superiority) and thus it is a justification for any actions (including destructive actions and personal attack). But again: I hope I'm just wrong.
And I don't really understand your statement that I'd better go answer your question, because it totally irrelevant to my question to you and looks like an indirect personal attack (see ad hoinem and WP:PA: Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.)
The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th
Tip of the month:
Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.
Hello, Coffeeandcrumbs. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Naila Ayesh".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!
Regarding our last topic: Main Page history resumed to be written by bot on 10 July, but I wonder about the missing ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed, the Wikidata information can be useful
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Recently you saidDespite 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
An edit summary of yours
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.
