User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/February

Your GA nomination of Police Regiment Centre

The article Police Regiment Centre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Police Regiment Centre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Police Regiment South

What do you mean by "driven anti-Semitism"? Do you want me to supplement the activities section with the info from Arico and whatever else I can dig up? I do think that we need to cover the transition to more anti-partisan ops in '42. Unlike Centre and North, South wasn't redeployed to the frontlines during the Soviet winter counter-offensive. Do you think that this should be mentioned explicitly?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Yes, if you have additional information you can add to the article, that would be great. On the first point, it was a typo (missing "by"). On the last point, yes, it's worthwhile to mention. BTW, I procured Westermann's book (Hitler's Police Battalions) which is excellent, even if it's a grim read. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just got it through ILL myself and should have Uniformed Police Forces of the Third Reich: 1933 - 1945 by Phil Nix arriving next week. So hopefully some more organizational history as the post-Barbarossa period is pretty thinly sourced. Also just got In Broad Daylight: The Secret Procedures Behind the Holocaust by Bullets by Father Patrick Desbois. Won the National Jewish Book Award. Amazing interviews of the people who assisted the Germans in their murderous tasks; really a worm's eye view of how some of these massacres were set up and conducted. I found mentions of some post-Barbarossa massacres conducted by Pol.-Rgt. 15 that I need to add to that article.

Fritz Lanman and other Lanmans

Not paid/hired, not related, just volunteer local historian and genealogist who has helped this family and other local notables John Warnock, Charles Geschke once they achieve notability with suitable citations. My primary wikipedia work is streams and their ecology. Schmiebel (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Schmiebel: thank you for letting me know. However, some of the edits come across as bordering on promotionalism, such as:

• ClassPass is now the world's largest company leading membership to the world’s largest fitness network with over 8,500 partners in 49 cities worldwide! [1] cited to the CEO interview: "ClassPass CEO: Our new product allows users to live-stream their... ".

This is a WP:SPIP source, not suitable for statements in Wikipedia voice. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree and will editSchmiebel (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleting articles about certain companies

Hi, today I objected to several deletions you had requested for articles about companies that apparently had originally been created as part of a covert paid editing scheme. I think that these companies are sufficiently notable and that the current version of each article has been cleaned up enough to mitigate NPOV issues. I would like to encourage you to think about the value that a neutral, factual Wikipedia article can have for readers seeking impartial information about such a company.

However, I also wanted to let you know that I share the general concern about the effects of undisclosed paid editing; and I do agree that there are cases where deleting or stubbing articles about borderline notable subjects who aggressively try to promote themselves on Wikipedia can be preferable over the laborious effort to deal with such activities. Please do keep up your good work on enforcing Wikipedia's principles. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@HaeB: thank you for your message. I obviously disagree about the notability of the subject, that's why I nominated the article for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bounce Exchange.

I think it's a bit naive to believe that an NPOV article can be created on private companies that do a lot of self-promotion; i.e. who has independently verified that the company has 800 customers? And not 80? Etc. But opinions vary. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Erich Hoepner

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Erich Hoepner you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Euryalus -- Euryalus (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

HIAG

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article HIAG has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Good luck with the aricle as it moves forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: thank you. I appreciate it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Bayesian

An article that you have been involved in editing—Bayesian—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Florida (group)

this is not allowed. Thank you, sir. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Republic of Florida (group). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Semiautomatic assault weapons

No, I don't think I'll remove anything. Your adds at NRA strike me as POV. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm simply not going to endorse you imposing it on the page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trekphiler: Thank you for letting me know. I don't believe that this was an appropriate comment on an article Talk page ([2]), which should focus on content, not contributors. If you wish to discuss my alleged anti-NRA, anti-gun POV, please feel free to do so on my Talk page :-). --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Norden

Hi, I'm respectfully asking for a response on the Nordic countries talk page regarding Estonia. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@SørenKierkegaard: I commented, but I feel you might get more participation out of a WP:RFC. The page does not appear to be well trafficked. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Gun control discretionary sanctions

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.  Bishonen | talk 22:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you for the notice. I was actually notified back in October when I first edited the National Rifle Association article but forgot about it. I will read up on it. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

page move

A proper page move request has been posted to Talk:Modern sporting rifle. You may want to post your reasons, and any supporting guidelines, in support of the move there. Notice of the move request will be posted at WP:RM and the community will now have an opportunity to discuss the move. (consider this your notice). - ^theWOLFchild 02:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, this is obviously a potentially controversial move and I'm a little surprised that it wasn't contested sooner. The discussion should be allowed to run for at least seven days. FYI, I'm the bot operator who supports this process. wbm1058 (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: As with Trekphiler, who I offered same, if you wish to discuss [3] my allegedly having repeatedly voiced anti-gun sentiment, please feel free to do so on my Talk page :-). --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You see... that's just it. I'm not interested in debating the politics of firearms here. I just don't like to see people who's political ideologies and anti-gun passions, that have been inflamed by the recent shooting, taking that rage and disrupting the project with it. They need to check that shit at the door. If you've been paying attention, the position I've taken on the issue, now at RfC, is to oppose filling up firearm articles with giant walls of prose about one mass-murder after another. The type of additions that will never end because there will always be some kind of firearms-related incident in the news, including mass-shootings among others. What does that do to these articles? Puts them waaay out of balance. Look through my posts and you'll see just that. I'm not trying to suppress any information. I've made no "pro-" or "anti-gun" comments. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It's not a place to right wrongs. We're not here to educate the populace on the 'evils' of "these semi-auto "assault rifles", that have no other purpose than to kill people", or specifically the AR-15 and how many people it's killed and "how much firearms manufacturers make off the deaths of innocents" and all the NRA conspiracies. All that needs to stop.

That goes for renaming that article. I've made my position clear on that and so I won't repeat it here. There is now a proper page move request posted. People will actually have an opportunity to have their say before it's moved (if it's moved). The process takes seven (7) days and the page has been move-protected for that time, It's how it should've been done in the first place. Also, you'll notice I didn't post any actual argument against the move. I didn't even post a !vote. I just want to see it done properly, and if the community comes up with a consensus to move it, then I'm fine with that. It was done the right way, and it can't be argued after.

Too many people have a personal agenda here, someone needs to look out for the project. - ^theWOLFchild 05:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think you checked all your shit at the door. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I absolutely appreciate that many people are upset about the recent shootings, (and all these mass shootings in general), as am I. But I just don't want to see the project be adversely affected by that. I'm not looking to get into any pro- vs. anti-gun disputes here, Drmies (or K.e.c), I'm really not. Again, I'm not trying to suppress any information either, whether it's about these shootings, or the firearms used in them, or the public's access to such firearms, or the companies that make them. I'd just like to see that any content changes or additions regarding these issues, are done so with community-wide support, (as opposed to conflicting local consensuses), that guidelines are followed, and that affected articles remain neutral and encyclopaedic. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think what Drmies is saying is that you are operating on the basis of your personal agenda, but lack the self-awareness to realize it. Let me elaborate. You believe, adamantly, that firearm articles should not contain information about mass shootings perpetrated with those firearms (per your statement above). Now, I'm not involved in firearms articles and I'm hardly a gun expert, but it's blindingly obvious to me, as a sentient, literate human being, that many, many reliable sources clearly link specific firearms (e.g. AR-15-style rifles) to mass shootings in the US.

So this association appears in numerous reliable sources, in the direct context of the firearm family in question, yet you argue that it should not appear on Wikipedia. Your position isn't based on an objective summary of the best available reliable sources (it can't possibly be); it's based on your personal opinion about relevancy, and presumably on your personal agenda. In this case, you are the person failing to edit neutrally when you try to exclude this information. In fact, you're substituting your personal agenda for clear site policy, which mandates that we reflect the content and context of the best available reliable sources. And yes, someone needs to look out for the project. MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, 'MastCell', literally, every, single, thing you just said (wrote) about how I "operate", my "agenda", my "beliefs", my "arguments", my "position", my "opinion", my "agenda" (again, but "personal" now) and my "edits"... was completely wrong. I don't know how any "sentient, literate human being" could possibly be more wrong. Now, please note how I specifically quoted so many items from your statement. I did that because I wanted to demonstrate that I carefully and thoroughly read your comments. A courtesy you have quite clearly, and utterly, failed to show me. I suggest you go over all the comments I have made the past few days, regarding these particular issues, on the related article talk pages, and actually read what I have written. Get yourself a more accurate and correct understanding of my "position", (etc., etc., etc.) on these issues, then come back and adjust your comments accordingly. Once we're on the same page, I'm more than willing to discuss this with you, and address any concerns you have, if you still have any. - ^theWOLFchild 21:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms

@Thewolfchild: Sorry I was not clear. I do not wish to discuss gun politics. What I mean to say is that if you have a problem with my editing, then please discuss your concerns on my Talk page or at an appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:ANI. Here's a sampling of your recent comments at WP:GUNS directed at me / about me (permalink):

• anti-gun editors
• To assume bias is a lack of WP:AGF
• repetitive, off-topic nonsense
• Now you're just being disruptive
• an editor who has repeatedly voiced anti-gun sentiment (the “editor” is myself)
• Something about "bias" you said? Pfft! Talk about bias... Etc.

BTW, when you ostensibly quote someone, please use exact wording and / or include a diff. Nowhere on that page, I’ve used the word “bias” or said that any member of the project is "biased".

At WP:VP:

• appalling lack of faith and baseless accusations of bias (presumably, this is still about myself) [4]
• your claims that editors from the Firearms Project were "biased" [5]

… and my Talk page, in this discussion:

• … people whose political ideologies and anti-gun passions (…) taking that rage and disrupting the project with it
• I just don't want to see the project be adversely affected by that
• Too many people have a personal agenda here, someone needs to look out for the project

This comes across as if you believed that the project was under attack from those with a personal agenda and political ideologies, which perhaps was not your intention. I agree that Wikipedia is not a place to right wrongs, but neither it is a place for advocacy intended to debunk alleged NRA conspiracies. Re: We're not here to educate the populace about "how much firearms manufacturers make off the deaths of innocents" – where did this even come from? Were you intending to quote me, or anybody else?

I've quoted these items from your statements to show how you've communicated to this point, so I’m not surprised to see the reaction from Drmies and MastCell. I would appreciate it if you could stop with the language of “anti-gun sentiment”, “personal agenda”, and “disruption”. You may think that it’s just about look[ing] out for the project and making sure the articles don’t get waaay out of balance, but your comments came across as personal abuse, belittling, and casting aspersions. I definitely felt as if I were being attacked at WP:GUNS; I thought: whoa, where did this come from? :) Thank you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If you would like an exact quote, there here's one "I do not wish to discuss gun politics" said by you, right above. And here is my reply; "Neither do I." So what is it you are expecting from this? The majority of the quotes & diffs that you've selected (and posted without context) are from the Firearms Project talk page, and are now 4, almost 5 days old. (perhaps it took you that long to write out this gigantic post?) I could also say that I felt you were casting aspersions towards members and contributors to that project, including myself... but I won't. It's basically old news. The debate moved to Village pump, where I see the consensus in not in favor of the changes you and your cohort were seeking. Further to that, I see another editor accused you of canvassing, and yet another editor took issues with your attitude, posting this comment to you; "@K.e.coffman: - You should take some time to cool down, this is the second thing I have seen you involved in here. Just hope the editing isn't getting to you is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)" But instead of taking his advice, here you are, several days later, accusing me of all kind terrible and ghastly crimes and basically picking for a fight. Well, I'm not interested in that either. My main (and really only concern) is that the neutrality of articles is maintained. A majority of my comments will show that. I haven't even been active on the WP:GUNS page, AR-15 style page or the Village Pump RfC for awhile now. I've moved on to other things. Maybe you should to (or don't. you can do what you like, just know that I'm not interested in being involved). We've collaborated before. and I`m sure at some point down the road, on a different topic, we may very well collaborate again. Have a nice night - ^theWOLFchild 04:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to move on, then perhaps not post on my Talk page as recently as today [6]? Yet, you add you and your cohort yet again -- who is that now? In any case, if you wish to discuss further with the other editors, then their Talk page is the right place for that. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the only reason I've posted here is because you specifically asked me to, (and repeatedly, no less). You pinged me to a comment posted to me, and so I replied, as you requested. I since noted that Drmies and Mastcell posted comments to, so I replied to them as well. With the most recent post, you pinged me again to a very, very lengthy and somewhat prevocational post directed at me and clearly seeking a response from me. So don't now complain about me posting on your page. I left my last message with a suggestion to move on, and even extended somewhat of an olive branch, which you ignored. This last comment of yours makes it seem that I was unwanted here from the start, and I'm disrupting your page. I'm just replying, not initiating. You posted. I replied. Then I suggested we move on. So let's do that. Again, have a nice night. - ^theWOLFchild 04:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Armin T. Wegner/GA1

K.e.coffman, it's been over a month since nominator JClemens made his most recent comment in the Sourcing section of your review there, and you haven't yet replied. Do you intend to return to the review? It would be nice to get things moving there again. If you don't intend to return, I can see what I can do to find another reviewer. Please let me know if I should do so. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the reminder. I requested a second opinion on the Talk page [7] with additional comments on the review page [8]. Hopefully, I would get some feedback soon. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

1RR @ Hasbara

Please note that you violated 1RR with this edit in relation to prior edit on an article that is clearly ARBPIA (and clearly marked as such (it is protected - haven't checked the logs - but it's probably there). I respectfully request you self-revert. On a further note - it would seem from the reverting and the TP discussion that there is no consensus here, so I would suggest procedureally (if you deem this worthy of editorial time) that you take this up at NPOV/n, DRN, an RfC, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Done: [9]. Thank you for catching it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)