User:Coffeeandcrumbs

This user is not to be confused with User:Coffee and User:CoffeeCrumbs, who are entirely different users. Please do not use the name Coffee to refer to this user as it is ambiguous. You can use C&C.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coffeeandcrumbs.

Happy New Year, Coffeeandcrumbs!

Happy New Year!

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]

"Zionist entity"

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]

Nomination of Igor Fruman for deletion

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]

Article on Calvin Cheng

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]

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.

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coffeeandcrumbs&oldid=1225797469"