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

Archives

Thank you ...

Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)... for improving the quality of articles in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and in June! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question...

Would you please explain why you keep PRODing or AFDing articles I created (Glamour Solos, Me and My Girlfriend) without notifying me? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Erpert: thank you for your message. IIRC, I used to notify you, but then I spotted this edit summary: What a surprise; K.e. coffman wants a porn article removed. I interpreted this as the notices being bothersome and unwelcome. In any case, it's unlikely that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glamour Solos (2nd nomination) would have closed any other way, had I notified you.

However, I should not have assumed. I apologise. I will be sure to notify you going forward. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gross misclassification of "Vital Articles"

Wikipedia keeps a list of the most important topics as "Vital Articles". Previously, several concentration camp commandants were "military leaders" and, even more egregiously, Eichmann and Heydrich were under "law enforcement" (what laws were they enforcing, exactly?) Anyway, I made a new category under "criminals" for crimes against humanity. Catrìona (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: I agree; this does not seem appropriate. Thank you for creating the new category. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well whoever added that cat for Heydrich probably was thinking that he was a top police official in his country and he was the President of the International Criminal Police Commission, the forerunner of Interpol. And he was enforcing the "laws" of his country at the time. That certainly does NOT change the fact he and said "laws" were unethical and immoral or that he was responsible for arrests, deportations, and murders on a mass scale. So, changing the cat is fine with me. Kierzek (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-right

Hey K.e.coffman, just want to note I always appreciate your contributions and respect your opinion. I'm also, myself, the person who reported WikiVolunteerBen and expected them to be blocked. Nevertheless, I disagree with one aspect of what you've written here: [1]. My own personal politics couldn't be further from "Alt-right," but I definitely don't believe that an editor's probable association with that movement would, itself, disqualify them from editing. As a policy that would be very dangerous, allowing personal political beliefs rather than scholarship / behavior to determine editing eligibility (those factors may be correlated, but the spread is very wide). Furthermore, even if WVBen were simply a diligent librarian, you might anticipate that in the course of research into a far-right subject, they would watch hours of their hateful youtube videos. -Darouet (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet: I initially tried to AGF, thinking that the comments may have been made out of ignorance or young age, but it very quickly became obvious that the person was either (1) a geniune antisemite; or (2) Nazi troll. Judging by their Talk page (User_talk:WikiVolunteerBen#Blocked), the latter (or both) is much more likely than interest in understanding the ideology in question. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial awards

Hi K.e,coffmann!

Sorry to pester you, I see you added content to the Golden Party Badge article. I'm having some trouble with one editor about what is allowed to be added and what isn't, regarding linking to an existing stand-alone article. I'm not asking for you to take sides, I'm trying to get some guidance here. I added to the content of the article by creating an Awards and Decorations section. I then added some awards and decorations and provided links to their own stand-alone pages on wiki. One editor in particular has now decided that some of them are "trivial" and I, and presumably anyone, is not allowed to refer to these stand-alone articles. This includes the Golden Party Badge and the Blood Order. I have had several sections of added content on the Röhm page, and others, deleted because of this so-called trivial/menial business, yet when I've asked for a hard and fast list of all the articles I'm not allowed to refer to via links, I've not been given one. I'm not sure why a stand-alone article exists if you're not allowed to link to it? What do you think I should do here? Just never refer to an existing article via a link or persevere and hope for the best. As it stands now I just add links and wait and see if they are deleted under this new totally ambiguous decision by this editor, and then wait for the inevitable aggressive warning. Not sure what to do! Could use your input on the Röhm talk page re this in general and the Golden Party Badge in particular. Sorry for bothering you Troy von Tempest (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Hermann Frank

K.e. - need to remove "military service" part from info box and I recall it being done for some other articles, but forgot what needs to be changed to display correctly. Can you have a look. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kierzek: This can be done via adding a "module" to any infobox, with "embed title" parameter, for example:

| module = {{Infobox military person |embed=yes | embed_title = [[SS]] career |allegiance={{flag|Nazi Germany}} |branch=[[SS-Totenkopfverbände]] |serviceyears= |rank=[[Obersturmbannführer]] |commands=[[Auschwitz]], 1 December 1943 — 8 May 1944 [[Majdanek]], 19 May 1944 — 22 July 1944 }}

The end result can be seen here: Arthur Liebehenschel.

I went ahead and made the change at the Frank article. If there's not much to list apart from rank, this can be omitted. By in the case of Frank, he was a Higher SS and Police Leader, so I included the SS career as a module. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you hear...

Hey - I was pinged on my Talk page yesterday and I responded. It was based on this article in The Telegraph. The Telegraph article requires a login (free) - pinging you since your Wikipedia name appears in the only comment on the article. Just thought you'd want to know. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Thanks for the note; I was not aware of this article. I had emailed the reporter; you can see the email here: User:K.e.coffman/Email to The Telegraph. He actually responded with a brief message thanking me for the info. I also commented at AN along the same lines. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post WWII Nazis in office

Is there an article, discussing Nazis who remained in office in Germany, or elsewhere in similar positions whether as civil servants of Law, or law enforcement? Shushugah (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page stalker) The question begs the question of "who is(was) a Nazi?" Which is far from straightforward to answer (official position in Nazi party? party membership? "ordinary" Germans who by and large support the Nazis?). I'll also note no one remain in office - the Allied-occupied Germany administration replaced everyone (with exceptions on a very local level) - people regained (or attained different) positions once Germany transitioned back towards independence.Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: Sorry, I'm not aware of such an article. I do know that, in West Germany, personnel from the Order Police were largely able to return to previous jobs / roles. I've added some content to this effect here, for example: Police Regiment South#Aftermath.

It was different in East Germany where all police personnel were replaced. AFAIK, all SS personnel were arrested / interned and had to go through de-Nazification proceedings. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and till 1970's most Nazi ambassadors, Judges, politicians remained in power in West Germany. In Austria, SS membership wasn't a deal breaker, for example see arresting office of Anne Frank, Karl Silberbauer. In the US, not a single Nazi remained in prison after 1950, because many worked for CIA/OSS. Stuff like that, should be neutrally compiled in an article. Should I start drafting a talk page? Shushugah (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: this sounds worthwhile, but you'd need to define the topic first. What would be the name of the proposed article? Once you define the topic, it would be easier to make suggestions for sources, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: A proposed title Post-war Nazi influence, Nazis in government, post war. The article should cover the limitations or reluctance at Denaizification effort, and while it's not surprising that Nazi friendly corporations remained in power, it is shocking how many Nazi party members were allowed to retain civil society posts. Articles like this for example, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/rosenburg-file-exposes-nazi-influence-in-postwar-germany-1.2824487 and a section should be added to Denazification, beyond just the Brown Book sectionShushugah (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: How about Nazi influence in post-war Germany and Austria? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ROTH Capital Deletion

Hi there. Not sure if you saw- the ROTH Capital Partners deletion was closed. SoWhy suggested that we renominate it and address the WP:VAGUEWAVE issue. Was hoping for some insight from you as well, since I've little experience in this area. Thanks! Muffin7Maniac (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muffin7Maniac: you might want to give it a couple of weeks. If you nominate again, you'd probably want to include analysis of sources, i.e. why and how they don't meet WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ronald Smelser

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ronald Smelser 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I assessed this a couple of days ago and am awaiting your comments and/or changes. No rush - I just wanted to make sure that you were aware. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Apologies; I missed the review comments. I've addressed them now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JG 27

Please see Talk:Jagdgeschwader 27 - I have found a reliable source covering material which you previously removed from this article about falsification of claims due to a lack of decent sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel Ish: thank you for letting me know and thank you for improving the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 26#Yoshiki Nakajima

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 26#Yoshiki Nakajima. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ronald Smelser

The article Ronald Smelser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ronald Smelser 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: thank you; I appreciate the quick review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was an interesting and straight forward article to review. I shall keep an eye out for any future GANs of yours and try not to let any wait so long again. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roumanian and proud

I ran the idea by Nick-D a few days ago that this new incarnation was blocked user User:Romanian-and-proud. The similarities of M.O and POV were screamingly obvious. The Antisemitic aspect of the accounts world view appears to have worsened since 2016. A toxic mess. Glad it looks like it's being addressed. Simon. Irondome (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might hold off on lodging the SPI until the ANI report is resolved - it looks like a separate SPI report may be moot given multiple editors are making this connection. Nick-D (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Irondome: Yeah, quite disturbing. And many thanks to Nick-D for filing the report; it takes time and effort. But I was surprised at some of the 'oppose' comments at ANI, as in: let's give him a chance, but diversity! and the diff is out of context. Erm... it's pretty hard to take "Muh Holocaust" out of context. BTW, I had to look up what that phrase was and I cannot unsee the memes that go with it. Not recommended.

Talk about creating a hostile editing environment. Wikipedia is not a place to spew one's racist beliefs, nor a laboratory to conduct social experiments, to see what kind of reaction one might get from fellow editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who don't see Holocaust denial as being particularly troublesome are concerning, though they seem to very much be in the minority. A few too many people seem to believe that everything is relative, and views on history are merely political positions. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]