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

Archives

Thanks!

Hi there, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh 666 21:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ansh666: You are welcom; thanks for volunteering! K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Algemeene-SS Vlaanderen

Greetings -- another potential "fan" page worth watching. As of today, I added ref improve tags on suspect sources and the overall page. --Obenritter (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Obenritter: Thank you for the note; I will have a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Rifle Association

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Terrorist96 (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For background: The NRA is not an RS for self-serving exceptional claims about itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For removing alternate history. scope_creep (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tire of the insults on AfD

After reading the horrible deletion discussion on Carly Mathis, I tire of how often people spout false insults against me. gibond, or whatever his bizarre, meaningless user name is, has the audacity to claim all I do is nominate articles on women for deletion, and "replace them with articles on obscure Mormons." Somehow I think people looked to as world leaders by a religion of more than 15 million for multiple years are more important than winners of some beauty contest that hardly anyone notices. Beyond this, the accusation ignores that the restriuctions on me were placed by people who were outraged because I was nominating articles on male footballers for deletion. Evidently football articles are sacrosanct, and if you defy them by a nomination for deletion you must be punished. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: I'm really sorry to hear that. AfD discussions can be very heated, especially if they touch on a subject editors feel passionate about. I've learned that it's best to keep one's cool and respond concisely, if at all. The sports notability guidelines are way too permissive, IMO. Beauty pageants is another area full of fancruft. And many more. I've learnt to accept it since Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit". Have you tried discussing your concerns on the editor's Talk page? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Cox book/ free pdf

Did you get a copy of the Dixie's Daughters? If you could share it somehow, I'd be extremely grateful. Fluous (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fluous: Please feel free to send me an email. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. S. hasn't a clue.

Controversial: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Controversial was the compromise as it was felt 'provocative' was too strong to state in the voice of Wiki, so controversial was the compromise on the Talk page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The slow edit war continues with D. S. whitewashing out the historical record of PP and believing the words of ex-con Joey Gibson over the actions of the organization. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and I though

that I had issues about the German army on the Eastern front in WWII. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carptrash: thank you for your message. However, it's somewhat cryptic so I'm not sure how to respond. If you could elaborate, it might be helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was just surprised to see all the references to the Eastern Front on your user page. I have been interested in it since I read Rise & Fall of the 3rd Reich in 1965 or so. Carptrash (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Schulz

Hi K.e.coffman, I see you recently put a redirect in this article, to some Knights Cross of the Iron Cross. I don't know what it is, but I dont think it was important, but I understand why. Otto Schulz was a pretty heavy hitter. He was head of 3/SKL of the Kriegsmarine during the last year of the war. 3/SKL was one of the 6 main departments of German Navy, potentially in charge of between 20000 to 40000 folk. I read your list, for about the fifth time, and some of the comments you linked to. The categorization is spot on. Pretty funny, and a bit mad, frustrating and a total hassle, but I'm glad somebody is doing it.scope_creep (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Thank you for your message. Yes, some of the entries are pretty funny. I cannot decide which section is my favourite, but perhaps "His nose is long and straight". That said, Selective empathy is also pretty good; I still cannot get over "cold water hydrants".

Re: Schulz, did you perhaps have Otto Schulz (admiral) in mind? Schulz/Schultz seems like a common name, so perhaps it was someone else entirely. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Yip, it was him I was looking for, although the article has not got a great amount of content. It seems to be all about his iron cross. It has almost zero info about the mans life. I reverted your other article, and then reverted when I found it wasn't him, some Luftwaffe guy, with another iron cross and again no content. There is no content. I read some work of yours that you were doing, about a year ago, but I didn't realise it was so bad. I can see why the nose is long and straight, is bad form. A lot was recordered by TICOM (the stuff I write about) including blonde hair and roman nose, strong face features, and I can see why other authors writing about the same people, recording them in that way, as it is a military identification mechanism possibly. It is not encyclopedic in the least. Hopefully, somebody will fill that Otto Schulz with some salient content. A lot of these senior guy had iron crosses from the first world war, and turning up, or being part of a battle, or happen to be in a barracks when hitler was undertaking a tour, which means there must 1000's of these hollow articles on Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how are you supposed to have a consensus?

If discussion is censored? LiberatorLX (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LiberatorLX: This has already been discussed multiple times; please see, for example, this archived discussion. You can seach the archives for additional discussion in the archives. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it needs to be discussed again. There is no proof that Richard Spencer is a "white supremacist". White Nationalist is a more accurate term, and thanks for not being an Antifa terrorist scumbag and censoring me. LiberatorLX (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LiberatorLX: You do realise that the references to "communist sensorship", "hating white people" and "Antifa terrorist scumbags" is the language of the alt-right, don't you? Please tone it down and people would take you more seriously. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schutzmannschaft

Hi, here is my rationale for using the German name for 36th Estonian Police Battalion: I re-wrote Schutzmannschaft back in July 2014 (old version) and Hilfspolizei in January 2011 (old version). At that time it was a complete soup of everything that remotely had English words "auxiliary" and "police" in it. The only way to untangle the mess and figure out wtf was to go back to the original German terminology and stick to it. English literature is plagued by inconsistent and imprecise translations, particularly for more obscure things. I am not a fan of German names (heck, I can't spell Schutzmannschaft without copy-pasting it), but I feel that's the only way to avoid confusion. There is also the issue of consistency (several other articles in Category:Schutzmannschaft).

P.S. awesome userpage. I could spend hours reading it. Thank you for dealing with propaganda b/s. Renata (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata3: Thank you for your message and your past work on these two articles. I would prefer to keep the name 36th Estonian Police Battalion as is. That's how the name appears in the English-language sources that deal with the topic, such as Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, the report of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity, Yitzhak Arad, etc. This unit appears to be one of the better-known Estonian police battalions, so an English name is appropriate per WP:COMMONNAME. I added Category:Schutzmannschaft to the redirect, so the name Schutzmannschaft Battalion 36 would be included in the list if someone clicks on the category. Would that work for you? PS -- I'm glad you enjoyed the userpage :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attached to either name - I just wanted to explain my thought process in case it made a difference in your thought process. I do like the English name, concerns for confusion and consistency notwithstanding, so I am not going to pursue this further. Thanks, Renata (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]