User Talk: CoffeeCrumbs

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 6
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(28d)
|archive = User talk:CoffeeCrumbs/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives|search=yes}}

Belle Knox AFD #2

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)

Thanks for an effective ANI post

I really appreciate your post regarding Roxy the Dog. While I still disagree on the conclusion, I can totally see how you get where you did, and for some reason the way you explained it clicked with me in a way several others hadn't. It looks like my view doesn't jive with the majority's, which is fine, and I really appreciate that I can understand that majority view and see its validity now. Kudos to you for a well-written post. Cheers! EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

:I'm glad it was useful! I do sometimes worry about piling on with an opinion. I can totally understand feeling that Roxy is unsuitable for this project; I'm not sure I actually disagree with this. There's a very good chance that Roxy gets themself indeffed on their own, but it just offends my sense of fair play to essentially parole violate someone for what is kinda the equivalent of jaywalking. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your work and no worries on bad form

I appreciate your talk note on Internet Press Guild ↗. Note that I never consider it bad form for anyone to edit my work if it improves Wikipedia. Our collective goal, as both writers and editors, is to make a better product for all the readers so never hesitate to edit what I do if it strengthens the article. I do jump into a lot of articles and sometimes am not as perfect as I should be so I have no ego in seeing my work edited as long as the end product is better.
TNL (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your comment at ANI, it made me feel better. Was concerned I'd done something horrible! Porterjoh (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
|}

G5

Hi CoffeeCrumbs, and my apologies for having to remove three of your G5 speedy deletion tags from pages that were initially created by the Eastmain and Eastmain2 accounts while also reverting Eastmain's continued block-evading edits. I did so because what I noticed before removing these tags was that the drafts in question were first created before the owner of these two accounts and Eastmain3 was blocked from editing in February 2026 and subsequently created many more socks. Based on my understanding of :WP:G5 ↗, it states that the criteria applies to pages that were {{tq|created by banned or blocked users '''in violation of their ban or block''', as well as pages created in violation of general sanctions}}, and hence, only pages that were created by a person while evading blocks/bans or not obeying general sanctions at the time of the page's creation may be tagged and deleted per G5. So far, I do not see any evidence of Eastmain evading blocks, bans or general sanctions before February 2026. If I really made a mistake in removing these G5 tags, please let me know. Thanks. ~SG5536B 02:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:It's not a mistake, it was a bit of a stretch on my part; I was going on that the theory that almost all of the edits of the articles were created by the editor's sockpuppets. I can probably just PROD but I was trying to save a little time in an obviously awkward situation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

a Barnstar of Diligence :) from ~RD

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |
For your sustained and serious work as an editor and administrator. We have had a difficult history and do not always see things the same way, but I have come to appreciate that you take your responsibilities, and the work of maintaining Wikipedia seriously (P.S Thanks for putting up with me 😀). I wanted to recognise that. ❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖁𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖆 𝕽𝖔𝖞 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ 09:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
|}