User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2017/April

Siege of Odessa 1941

Why delete the Romanian medal for the battle and say that it belongs in a separate medal page while meanwhile let the Soviet medals be included? Metal Gear Rex (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Metal Gear Rex: I commented at Talk:Siege_of_Odessa_(1941)#Undue_section; please feel free to continue the discussion there. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Kurt Franke

I just wanted to thank you for your note in reply to me on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Franke, which I didn't see until after the discussion was closed, hence my replying here rather than there. I should have noticed that you'd mentioned the author's name in your nomination, and shouldn't have been so quick to assume that a (not self-published, non-fiction) book qualified as the kind of source that establishes notability. I voted 'Keep' based on that misunderstanding but I can't say I'm disappointed to see the article go. Mortee (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mortee: Thank you for your message and the clarification. I'm am pleasantly surprised (which is rare as I usually get "Nazi hunter" of "anti-German" :-) . ) Yes, there's a lot of unreliable, revisionist or Landser-pulp sources out there, both in English and German.

I keep a running tab at User:K.e.coffman#Potentially problematic sources. Or see Waffen-SS in popular culture. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Franz Walter Stahlecker

Hello, I noticed you had hide my edit about the decorations of Franz Walter Stahlecker from his infobox. I did not provide the source, I know, but I have the copy of his original obituary in german language. There is a mention of this decorations and moreover I also had DVD disc which contains footage from his funeral. Honor pillow with his decorations is also visible. I can send you the obituary of him and maybe you can handle it somehow. Thank you AntonyZ (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@AntonyZ: if this information can only be sourced to archival photographs and DVDs, I don't feel there's a valid reason to include it in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your efforts during March Madness 2017, I hereby award you this barnstar. Thank you for your contributions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Thank you! The drive was a great idea. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Any clue?

...what this is about? - BilCat (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat: The type of quotation marks used vary language by language so your suggestions was entirely reasonable. I think the editor got it the wrong way or is overly sensitive. "Ignore" is the best course of action, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. - BilCat (talk)

Recent Edit on Piedmont Regional Library System

Hi there! Thanks for your contribution to my new article (Piedmont Regional Library System). While I agree with the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory, I've been cleared to do this by countless other page reviewers and New Page Patrollers on my 20+ other structurally identical pages. I actually have used that template on almost all my county library pages according to item 1 of this list: Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_normally_be_linked. And, by extension Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links. Just to perhaps add a little credibility, I'm a member of Wikipedia Project Library, and after reviewing literally hundreds of library system pages I can assure you almost every single one has a wikitable or list of some sort of the libraries in the system. The template I use has been around longer than I have. I would disagree that its use makes the page a directory, as it's the integral part of the "Library System" type of page vs. "Individual Library" page. I'd love to hear your input! Thank you! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Semmendinger: Thank you for your message. This is interesting as I'm pretty sure that ext links in body are to be avoided. Yes, the link to the main web site should be included in the infobox & in External links, but I'm not familiar with the format that I encountered: original version,

I randomly checked a few library articles, and they do not include ext links. Some just offer a plain list (w/o addresses):

• Vancouver_Public_Library#Branches
• Cologne_Public_Library#The_branch_libraries
• Free_Library_of_Philadelphia#Neighborhood_libraries (I would actually consider this treatment to be excessive)
• Chicago_Public_Library#Regional_libraries

Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As with anything the site, these types of things are subjective. There are ways I can argue my side (links included in my previous message) and there are ways you can argue that many external links are unneeded. I had a conversation with another user about this before and the two links I had above were enough to convince them that external links were needed. I'd actually argue that with the Free Library of Philadelphia they are completely a directory in that linked section. Phone numbers and Zip codes, in my mind, are too much. But like I said it's subjective.

I actually took my current template originally from Bergen County Cooperative Library System, and to a lesser extent, from List of Carnegie libraries in Pennsylvania. As a library system, the articles have enough notability to be passable. Many are stubs, sure, but they are notable enough to stand on their own. Because of that I guess I view these pages as mixes between lists and regular articles, and should someone in the future come along and make a page for one specific branch - well the template I put is the perfect place for them to add their link to.

Now, not to make this too long (:P) but I don't include individual library links unless they are linking to a true library site. The links on the page you removed them from each had their own library page, complete with short information about it, perhaps some history, their programs, etc etc. MAny of my other pages I exclude that column entirely because the individual library's URL is just a link to their address. That, to me, is a directory link.SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Semmendinger: Thank you for the explanation; I don't necessarily agree, as the exact same content could be found on the library web site, and is thus not "encyclopedically relevant". But I don't feel strongly about it, so I restored the content. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Not just for restoring it, but for giving me a good argument to consider for my future articles. I'll ask around and on the WikiProject to see what others have to say about it - perhaps there is another format I could use that is more fitting with what we're both looking for. I appreciate your help, I'm always trying to learn how to improve on here :) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of speech

This might be my favourite comment that I've seen looking through all the joke noms, while figuring out how to make the April 1 log readable again. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: yes, I eventually figured it out :-). But this also came across somewhat disruptive, as I saw the same editor nominate a user page for deletion, which was pretty inconsiderate. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the general consensus at WT:AFD was that this year some people went overboard... About 15 of them were G6ed last night because they were messing up the log and no one at all had responded too them. My comment above was more along the lines of that I appreciated your comment and it made me laugh :). TonyBallioni (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Language tagging

Hey, I saw you reverted my edit adding language tags to Joachim-Friedrich Huth. Language tagging has many benefits; MOS:ACCESS (specifically WP:ATLANG) recommends the use of language tags across Wikipedia.

One of the purposes of language tagging is to provide help to speech synthesisers, for example. Applying language tags telling software "this word should be pronounced as German" makes no difference to most users — there's no visible difference in the rendered page — but means that assistive technologies are less likely to screw things up.

I've restored the language tags to the article, but please feel free to {{ping}} me if you want to discuss language tagging further :o) — OwenBlacker (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@OwenBlacker: Thank you for clarifying. I was not familiar with how the template works, so the explanation was helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for being so understanding. Yell if you need :) — OwenBlacker (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

[Apologies]

Hi there - you seem to be calling me out regularly as a PR flack, which I can assure you I'm not. Those pages have been created in good faith as relating to the UK tech community. :) Misterpottery (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Misterpottery: I apologise for not assuming good faith; I was trying to convey that the article had the appearance of being a PR job, but I should have moderated my language nonetheless.

However, I still consider the subject of the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Trost (entrepreneur)) to be non-notable. What happens with such subjects is that the sources on them are generally "fluffy", which results in articles displaying what I call "lack of encyclopedic relevance", as in:

• "He is regularly cited in the mainstream press for his expertise ..."

What else is there to write about? Hence, the article looks like a glorified CV.

But it's a separate matter from who & how created the article. So please accept my apologies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the polite & cordial response! I appreciate your points on notability. I disagree, as in the context of the UK technology startup environment I find them to be notable, but I can understand your objection.

(Feel free to delete this entire thread from your talk page as you see fit!) Misterpottery (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Bronze Star

If the category for recipients of the Bronze Stat is deleted, do you see any point in maintaining Bronze Star Medal#Notable recipients? The section is almost certainly incomplete.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gaarmyvet: Thank you for your note. I generally do not support having sections on "notable recipients" as it, by definition, involves OR -- who determines which recipients are "more notable" than others? I would support removing this section if it comes to that. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll watch the CfD and use it, if the decision is "delete," to clean out that section. Boldness wins.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting. I was looking at an image of Lewis Nixon (United States Army officer) on Commons and noticed that it's in the categories of "Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal (United States)" and "Recipients of the Purple Heart (United States)." I can't remember if you were lead on the CfD for Purple Heart. Does Commons operate completely separately or will it buy into the decisions made here?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gaarmyvet: Yes, I believe that Commons is entirely separate, although an argument that the category was deleted on en.wiki would probably hold some sway. You could ask at User_talk:Diannaa; Diannaa is quite knowledgeable about Commons, so she should be able to offer some advice. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Patriotic War

For what it's worth, I am opposed to the deletion of Category:Recipients of the Order of the Patriotic War, but I did not see it the discussion when it was happening. Looks like only four editors did.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: You could try Wikipedia:Deletion review, but I doubt it would successful. WP:CATDEF is quite specific. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

[Nonsense accusations of] 1RR violation Russian interference

After having received the notice of Discretionary Sanctions relating to American Politics, you violated the 1RR restriction at "Russian interference". [1] [2]. Please undo one of those edits and continue your participation at talk. As I've tried to indicate on the talk page, some of what you are proposing represents changes to clearly established consensus on long talk threads among 10-20 editors. These include closed RfCs. Relatively short discussions over a few hours on talk, with a handful of editors having seen and participated, is not a good basis to make fundamental changes in the presentation of the subject. Consensus can change, and there's always room for improvement, but precipitous change without acknowledged consensus among those who recently created the standing version is not likely to result in stable improvement. At any rate, welcome to the article, but please undo one of your reverts. SPECIFICO talk 11:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I don't see a violation here. I implemented changes that was agreed upon at Talk: 17 agencies & Quote in the lead. Both were consensus edits.

You have then inserted a statement, in Wikipedia's voice, that was not supported by the source: "to undermine American democracy". The original quote of intelligence community's statement was: "Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process", which is quite different from "undermining democracy". I them removed it diff, which constitutes one revert by my count.

In any case, there's nothing for me to revert since another editor has added the quoted material: diff. I would suggests that dismissive comments such as ...being proposed for the purpose of (...) insinuating some unstated doubt...; Case closed, mission accomplished. Finito. Pass the mustard.; You're welcome to join the discussion and the editing here of course, but please... are not appropriate. Nobody needs a blessing from other editors to edit an article or participate in discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, you're new to the article and maybe to American Politics, which is why I posted the notice here and why I am taking the time to engage you on your talk page. You did violate 1RR and it is a bright-line with no "but it was consensus" "my revert was an improvement" or other such exceptions. If you'd prefer, you can ping a few Admins who have been involved in these DS matters, and you can discuss this with them, because AE threads are not a good use of editors' time and most editors, when they inadvertently cross the line, have learned simply to undo the violation and move on to more productive issues. But ignoring or denying the 1RR rule is not helpful. And of course, if there were a few words that you could have added to make the lonstanding consensus text more closely conform to the cited source, that would not have been a revert and it would have been consistent with what I and at least one other editor stated on the talk thread yesterday.

The two diffs posted at the top of the thread are the same, so it's not clear to me what I'm being asked to undo. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how that got garbled. Now I see there were 3: That one, plus the following two more: here goes, [3] [4] SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Only one of the disputed edits was a revert, namely the 06:43 edit which directly reverts Specifico's prior addition at 03:04. The other diffs mentioned are regular, step-by-step editing. As discussed in prior cases, editors must understand that not every deletion of text is a revert: there must be a direct link with another editor's prior recent action. Otherwise the whole encyclopedia would grind to a halt: nothing could ever be deleted because every piece of text has been added some day by somebody. — JFG ^talk 05:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about "Bavarian Daily"

If you're interested (and you by no means have to be!), you can see the genesis of the "Bavarian Daily" taunts here: [5] [6]. Rather than describing the "incident," I'll let you make up your mind about it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Thanks for the background. As I suspected, it was mostly about bringing down the opponent. I don't take kindly to bullying and other underhanded tactics, so when I see it, I say something: diff :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Thanks, I appreciate it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Rotherham

Just curious how you stumbled upon that discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Only you've never edited it and it's not on your watchlist, but you appeared there very quickly to revert my edits? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: It was being discussed on a Talk page on my watch list. No, I was not following you around :-) . And, obviously, I disagreed with the nationality / ethnicity being called out for no apparent reason in the fist para; that's why I made the edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, there was very much an apparent reason, but that will come out in the discussion no doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I commented at Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Recent_edit; let's continue the discussion there. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, your edit has been reverted, to retain the status quo. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating

Thanks for nominating most of Mjbmr's articles which fail most policies. I know they take a lot of time. If you have any time here are some more articles that he created that are questionable: OmarGoshTV, JoogSquad, The Royal Stampede, Brian Atlas (sports executive), Brian Atlas (YouTube personality), Danny Duncan (YouTube personality), Andrea Wendel, Alex Mandel, Jakob Owens, Brian Brough, Dennis Roady and BigDawsTv. Wow. Thanks. Hawkeye75 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye75: Thank you for your message. If you use Wikipedia:Twinkle, nominating articles for deletion is not that hard. Try it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, never knew that, thanks. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

James Garrison

Good afternoon. I'm just enquiring about the reason that soak.com's Wikipedia profile [[7]] has been removed? Can you please provide further information on this so we can try and remedy it to get the profile reinstated? We felt the profile was very factual and steered clear of any advertising. It was very much based around the company's history. Hopefully you can provide some feedback. Many thanks for your help. James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.223.254 (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Another facepalm

I've just fixed up the article on Hitler's finance minister, Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk. It argued that he was a non-political functionary and gave no reason for him being found guilty of war crimes and imprisoned. It turns out that he was in the role for political reasons, supported the Nazis and their agenda, played a significant role in the Holocaust and laundered money. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Yep, I'm sure there are more of these to be found :-) . Thanks for taking care of this one. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

AfD hero

	AfD hero
	Thanks for voting on my AfD! Rhombus (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Dapi89 has started a discussion concerning you

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Thanks. See also: WP:3RRN: Dapi89. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I wondered why he didn't immediately charge into AN/I as is his wont. Now I know. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Shame, as I was really looking forward to the evidence that he might present as to the alleged tag teaming. :-)

In a way, as you put it, it's a bigger issue, with some GA / A-class / FA articles having deficiencies in both sourcing and not adhering to summary style. This attempted GAR is instructive: GAR:Der Panzergraf. The comments from outside MilHist include:

• If this is a typical A-Class or GA-class military biographical article, then I would suggest that there is a systemic issue for articles of this kind
• If a reader is interested in that level of detail, they will go to the sources, but indiscriminately including details just because it's provided in biographies on the subject is unencyclopedic,

while MilHist community respond with: The more detail the better (that's an actual quote).

One editor eloquently put it: "This is a GAR for a 10,000+ word essay full of Nazi WP:FANCRUFT that apparently meets the GA criteria of a wikiproject with its own set of rules for what's encyclopedic". Do you have any suggestions or ideas on how this may be tackled, of have any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have any positive suggestions. I returned in December after a months-long partial wikibreak and part of the reason was the MilHist Project. After attempting to edit in accord to my understanding of the general rules I was informed that I was wrong because of some internal project policies. Despite having actual past professional credentials in the military history field, I was then informed that I was obviously unqualified. I occasionally edited in the meantime as IP's, but didn't resume my account until recently. Imagine my surprise when after returning, I find that wikiprojects in general are essentially dead, with the notable exception of MilHist. In theory, dragging some of these policies into the light of the Village Pump or some other general-usage place will result in their correction, but I don't hold out much hope. There will be the predictable appeals to authority and ownership, and huge drama, likely for little gain. I won't start such a discussion myself. The alternative is to "pick off" some of the more egregious policies one by one. If you want to start such a discussion, I will certainly participate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Ah, internal project policies rings some bells; I have a section on this: "Your are not from around here" :-) . I've also been told, when I first started editing, to to restrict [myself] to making the language more neutral where necessary" or otherwise expect to be reverted on sight.

In any case, thanks for the feedback -- I generally try to avoid the drama boards, and I agree that they may not always be productive. However, there have been areas where I was able to move things forward such as the Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners. Bringing the matter to wider community's attention has definitely helped there. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

About the Estonian police battalion ....

Not sure if you have access to the Oxford Bibliographies database, but for "The Holocaust in the Soviet Union" - they list The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945. Vol. 2, Ghettos in German-Occupied Eastern Europe as one of their recommended reference books. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Thank you for your message. Yes, I'm aware of the source; at the moment, it appears that The Encyclopedia, Yitzhak Arad and the summary statement from the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity all agree that the Battalion took part in the massacre. However, I'm still awaiting the more detailed information that editor Nug has promised me at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Conclusions_of_the_Commission.

I will probably create an article on The Encyclopedia one day; surprisingly, there's not one yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - guess I didn't make myself clear. I was pointing out that Oxford UP considers the Encyclopedia pretty reliable as they recommend it in one of their bibliographies. I figured if you faced any more questions about it being a "tertiary" work that isn't reliable, that it being on the Oxford Bibliographies would rather counteract that. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I'm aware of The Encyclopedia and consider it to be a reliable source ; that's why I was surprised to see it being challenged. Hence the threat at RSN. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)