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

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

GAR for Rommel Myth

Hi K.e.coffman. I've closed this GAR in which you participated. I don't think the closure has any bearing on the ongoing arbitration case at all, all the information is still there, and the GAR can always be revisited down the line. Fish+Karate 09:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: thank you for letting me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting example

Hi, We've both worked on the Hermann-Bernhard Ramcke article in the past, but I've had another go at it today. As shown by my changes, even after the earlier efforts to improve the article it was still rather lacking. Noticeably, the text downplayed the aggressive German attack on Italy in September 1943. The sources on the Battle of Brest make it clear that Ramcke was a hard liner determined to fight to the death (in what was a largely futile battle), and I've tried to note that as well. Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There was also white washing of Ramcke in the GA on his opponent at Brest: [1]. Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Thanks for your work on the article; Ramcke is quite famous for causing a furor in West Germany in 1952 when he publicly called the Western Allies "the real war criminals". That after having been released from prison early due to personal intervention of Chancellor Adenauer, who was incensed to the point of wanting to have Ramke prosecuted. That happened at a HIAG meeting, where the leaders had to backpedal and call a press conference to disavow, or something to this effect :-). --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Warning on Talk:Albert Speer‎

You recently gave me a warning on Talk:Albert Speer‎ (Personal attack removed)

The subject we are discussing has already been settled in several other pages on the subject and is properly references in all of them. (Personal attack removed) DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@DbivansMCMLXXXVI: I refer you to this. Pardon my bluntness, but it looks to me that someone needs to get a better handle on how to identify reliable sources. If you continue to shout by TYPING IN ALL CAPS, people will just tune you out. Please see WP:FOC for more advice.

You've mentioned that the matter has already been settled in several other pages. Could you let me know what these pages are? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Kluge

I have not forgotten about Kluge. All of the books I requested arrived today. I will start working on the article either later today or tomorrow; I think I could start with an "Early life and career" section that covers his life prior to the Second World War.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Great to hear. I've already filled out the Battle of Moscow a bit; will look for Barbarossa next. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The book Hitler's Generals offers a lot more than I expected on his early life. I have more to write about on a plot against Hitler in 1938 where Kluge was an accomplice then I can work on Poland and France. We can move this discussion to the talk page if you prefer.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: yes, we can continue on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Query

Should you ever figure out what this is about, would you be so kind as to share with me? Not an admin, btw, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI

"Cut it out"...? I don't know who, or what, you think you are, but I'm tired of your condescending attitide. Please keep it off my talk page, thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 22:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Do I go on articles' Talk pages and discuss "your friend Springee" or "your friend 72bikers", as you've done here? I don't think so :-). So please do not bring your personal feelings about contributors into Talk page discussions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Tag Adams

I just wondered why you showed up so vehemently as someone who wanted to delete an article about a gay porn star Cannonmc (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cannonmc: I provided my rationale here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tag Adams. There were serious BLP concerns with the entry, on top of marginal notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For excellent work in going above and beyond to preserve simple military facts. scope_creep (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Germany in World War II

Dear K.e.coffman, would you care to proofread my little makeover of the "History of Germany" article? It was so glaringly wrong that I felt immediate action was required. I'm not much of an expert for this period of German history though. It would be greatly appreciated. Greetings, --Prüm (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I worked on it some after reading the above note, but it needs additional work and cites added. I can work on it more, later when I have more time. Kierzek (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Prüm and Kierzek: thank you for the edits; loved the edit summary: Clean up (what fool wrote this?). "Brilliantly successful", "stunningly successful", the obligatory "brutal Russian winter, the coldest in 500 years on record", "pesky Churchill", etc. :-) --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is so funny as you let it stand. I am dead serious on this. Get your act together or find a different venue to pull your vulture act. For someone who claims genuine concern, you're way too tongue-in-cheek. --Prüm (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Stopping by: That "fool" was an established professional historian and seasoned editor, albeit not an expert on German history/WWII, which illustrates how prevalent, among other things, the whole narrative of General Winter is.[2] Regards, --Assayer (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "General Winter", whoever that's supposed to be. I'm talking about framing someone, or indeed a whole ethnic group, for abusive purposes. We are past the age of genocide. --Prüm (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Prüm: Just to clear that up: I commented upon a popular narrative of the reasons for the German defeat before Moscow, not upon a narrative by some real General Winter. I was sure that you would have understood the reference, because it was a well known saying at the time. You could find it in Theodor Plivier's novel Moscow, for example, and Johannes Hürter takes that up as a key to the German remembrance of that campaign. Frankly, I do not understand what you are referring to by framing ... a whole ethnic group and so forth, but since I am already providing unsolicited comments on somebody else's talk page, it is not for me to inquire. But let me tell you this, calling other editors "fools" in your edit summary because you disgagree with the content is unlikely to be understood as dead serious, but rather as being sarcastic and that would also have been the case in German. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Prüm, wont be responding, as he has been blocked. Kierzek (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect his account was compromised in the past day or two. His editing got really strange and the account then "requested" that it be perma banned, claiming it was a longtime troll. His behavior over the past 48 hours or so doesn't at all jive with his previous editing. We've had a spate of attempted account breaches in the past couple of days, mine included. In all likelihood his was successfully taken over. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello guys, quite disturbing what you are speaking of. I had someone try to access my account this afternoon. Not sure if it will do any good, but I reported it here. -O.R.^Comms 21:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Same with me. I dealt with Prüm in the German Wikipedia here and there for years now and their last edits certainly were, well, eerie. I'll leave a note at the German de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Notizen. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. It would explain the incoherent posts here and elsewhere. Their earlier contributions seemed fine. Here’s the ANI permalink: Ban requested. A weird development. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess I drop a quick note here: The repeated attempts to access accounts all over Wikipedia and Prüm's recent behavior are not related but coincidental. Regarding Prüm further details will most likely not be released for reasons of privacy. There is a reply apparently by Prüm[3], though, stating that he will visit a hospital. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@all: I am ublocked now. My repsonse to User:Assayer's above comment: of course I am aware what "General Winter"'s supposed to refer to. My comment was directed at the fact that the wording of the History of Germany article was so obviously slanted towards giving a false representation of Germans and Germany that I could not find a reason in my mind why nobody else had noticed this glaring fact yet or if so, taken action against it. I still cannot believe that User:K.e.coffman would respond to my attempt at rectifying the situation – at least in part and provisionally – in such a way as to give me the impression that he was mocking any such endeavour. I thank User:Kierzek for taking the time to do further work on improving the article. So much for now, --Prüm (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Prüm: sorry my comment came across the wrong way. I was in fact commending you (and Kierzek) for your efforts. This article was not on my watch list so I did not realise it contained the unfortunate content that you both revised. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sandra Romain

Hi, I just deleted the article on Sandra Romain, but noticed that there's still the article List of awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain. You may want to propose that one for deletion, too. --Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Randykitty: somebody beat me to it :-). It's already been deleted. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Clean Wehrmacht tall tale

Inspired by the Arbcom case. See, I thought that Clean Wehrmacht was a concept about war crimes and complicity in crimes against humanity, without including military incompetence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: well, you could say that there's an overarching "Wehrmacht myth", but the "clean Wehrmacht" is such a central pillar in it, that the two are pretty much the same, in my mind. I have a section on my user page dedicated to the Three Wehrmacht alibis that covers what, when he's being less generous, the historian Jonathan House calls "the three Wehrmacht lies". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, in general I agree that the coverage of WW2 on enwiki is often fairly different from that of dewiki and often questionably so. I see from comparing de:Schlacht um Moskau with Battle of Moscow that the latter seems to take the "three alibis" you speak of far more seriously than the former (and if there is a consensus [as Assayer mentions] that the German command misrepresented the reasons for its defeat in Moscow, it needs to be mentioned somewhere). We don't have a page for de:KZ Osaritschi at all, and Josef Harpe does not mention any war crimes period. And I am glad that someone highlighted the misuse of "Russia(n/s)" in the context of WW2 coverage, finally. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Note the section Wehrmacht at the gates in the article, as if reaching the "gates" of Moscow was somehow an indicator that Moscow was going to fall after a knock on the door. Another popular popular post-war legend is Wehrmacht being 'within sight of the Kremlin’. The phrase appears verbatim in the 1953 publication The German General Staff: Its History and Structure 1657-1945 by Walter Görlitz: GBooks. It then found its way into a number of later works. Compare with David Stahel's Battle for Moscow (2013): GBooks. It's a very tenacious myth; its death is not to be expected any time soon. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with the "clean Wehrmacht tale" at all? --Prüm (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC) (Btw. in good weather and from an elevation and with the right equipment any German officer could have seen the few dozens of kilometers right to the Kremlin.)

@Prüm: One could say that these are adjacent myths, but they are clearly related. See for example in Stahel, pp. 296-297:

• "Part of the confusion in understanding the notion of German 'success' at the battle of Moscow have been some rather famous soldier's accounts, which claim to have seen the very spires of the Kremlin itself. This is, however, a long-standing myth. The only German soldiers who ever saw the Kremlin in the Second World War were being paraded past it as prisoners of war."

The rest is in GBooks preview. Here's how Stahel makes the connection to 'clean' Wehrmacht:

• "Over time these notoriously unreliable accounts contributed towards a new grand narrative of the war in the east, which helped establish many postwar myths, not least of which was the separation of the Wehrmacht from the crimes of the Nazi state".

K.e.coffman (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, been trying to think of a phrase to replace being “at the gates of Moscow”. See Battle of Moscow talk page, if you think of a replacement phrase for consideration. Kierzek (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Erich Hoepner

On 16 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Erich Hoepner, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that German World War II general Erich Hoepner was a member of the military resistance to Adolf Hitler, but was also implicated in crimes of the Wehrmacht? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erich Hoepner. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Erich Hoepner), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, K.e.coffman/Archive/2018. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kierzek (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kierzek: Sorry, I did not receive it. Did you use “Email this user” function? Or you can email me at wiki.coffman-at-gmail.com. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Resent. BTW - you don't have to keep this notice. Kierzek (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Barnstar

	German Barnstar of National Merit
	On behalf of WikiProject Germany, I want to award you this for your immense work in Nazi Germany, namely the preservation of truth and Wikipedia guidelines. Wear it with pride! ...Somewhere on your humongous userpage, anyhow. Vami_IV✠ 05:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vami IV: thank you. I hope it's not an ironic commendation :-). --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. I discovered you and your work when I moved from this to Jagdgeschwader 52. Should work together. I know an article on a battle that must be a dream come true for Clean-Wehrmachtists. –Vami_IV✠ 01:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

News articles about gun coverage

Could you please stop flogging those news articles all over the place? Those writers are not wikipedia editors. They don't know anything about wikipedia's policies, or goals, or processes. Outside coverage can be of interest because it shows us what the outside world thinks of wikipdeia. It's not some kind of independent audit of our rules and systems, to be used to as proof in internal disputes. Maybe there is a major issue is gun articles on wikipedia, but coverage by clueless outsiders is not to be used as evidence in addressing it. There is obviously bad blood in the gun coverage here, and maybe even editor misconduct. I haven't been here long, but I know that what you're doing is not how we're supposed deal with it. When we accuse someone of something, we use diffs showing direct evidence of their on-site behavior in the context in which it was written. We're not supposed to make unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct, and definitely not supposed to re-post vague accusations with the "evidence" being some outside article that briefly summarizes the issue and throws in some quotes out of context. When I read news articles saying "Wikipedia's broken! It has an obvious liberal/skeptical/atheist/feminist bias. Here's some out-of-context summary of content disputes and some out-of-context quotes from random editors we emailed" I take them with a grain of salt. You should too. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

When I looked at this again today I realized it was way too strongly worded. Sorry for being rude. Basically, I just saw [[4]] in that ANI thread I was pinged to, and your bringing that news article into a discussion about an editor's behavior bothered me. As someone kind of involved in these gun article debates, I think I've seen you bring it up like that before. Reading this recent post again, you didn't really try to use them to judge their behavior, but I just still feel like relying on outside views in internal policy disputes like is just not helpful. Anyways, you're a reasonable person, and you probably know more than I do, so disregard this if you want. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: Thank you for adjusting the tone in your second message; I appreciate it. I believe it was the only time I mentioned the Verge article on a noticeboard: Consensus vs Local consensus. I thought that Russell Brandom did a fine job. His reporting was expanded on by Haaretz, based on their independent research, in Gun Enthusiasts Are Waging a War of Attrition on Wikipedia, and It Looks Like They're Winning. The author, Omer Benjacob, frequently writes on Wikipedia; here's more of his articles: [5], most of which are about Wiki.

It's possible, however, that they both got caught up in the 'latest news cycle' type of mentality. Here's a suggestion - if indeed their coverage was shallow and unbalanced, why not reach out to these reporters and offer your perspective? Springee mentioned that Brandom had contacted him, but he chose not to respond:

We also have the inflammatory yet factually questionable article in the Verge (...). I suspect most involved editors were, as I was, asked by the author a nebulous question just 24 hours before the article went out. I didn't reply. The resulting article was just a poor as I expected it would be and gets the fundamentals wrong in a way that allows for a good conspiracy tail rather than something that represents a series of editorial discussions that go back perhaps 2 years. (Statement by Springee).

You could ask Springee for Brandom's email and contact him. I'm sure Benjacob can be tracked down by other means. Then a balanced picture can emerge. What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the news coverage is awful, or terribly inaccurate (I see I was almost hysterical in the first post... maybe I should wait a day and read over what I type so I don't post angry rants on people's talk pages in the future. Sorry again). I just don't think that it's the kind of thing that should be brought up in disputes over editor behavior. The Verge piece comes to the conclusion that firearms editors in general are editing in pursuit of some kind of agenda, and even singles out a few editors. The Haaretz piece is more circumspect, presenting the way this group can use its collective expertise in a way he sees as constructive, but it still says they operate like a political interest group.

As you know, for us to make those kinds of accusations in ANI, we'd need to post diffs and the specific policies that behavior violated. The Verge article jumped straight to saying "these editors are acting in bad faith" as an explanation without presenting anything close to the kind of evidence and policy arguments that you or I would be expected to provide when making that accusation. That's fine for them, they're writing as journalists. Our rules don't apply to them. Maybe their accusations are even correct, but editors aren't supposed to make those kinds of accusations against other editors without presenting a lot more evidence than they did. I realize you were making a separate point, but you did post that Verge article in an ANI thread where an editor was accused of breaking rules. I just think that we should be very careful when posting outside articles to make sure we aren't bringing in unsupported accusations.

Maybe I will try to email them, though I suspect they won't do much about it, since it's been two months now. Also, thank you for the kind reply, that Haaretz piece was interesting to read. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus at Talk:AR-15 style rifle

K.e.coffman, please do the right thing and answer the questions about your claim of consensus. I think you are a reasonable editor and an editor who wouldn't let such a claim slide if the shoe were on the other foot. Springee (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Sure; I responded on the article's Talk page. Since you removed my last comment I left on your Talk [6], do I take it that I'm no longer welcome there? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. You are welcome on my talk page. We may not agree but that doesn't mean we can't talk. The only recent restriction I placed on another user was to stop a series of unneeded warning tags (as opposed to required notices or discussions related to disagreements). You are also welcome to just stop by and say Hi... even when we don't agree. In fact that's probably the best time. Springee (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to apologize for something. I was getting frustrated because I "had pinged" you twice and you hadn't replied. Too bad I didn't get my syntax right... Anyway, my syntax failure resulted in no pings and thus no reason for you to have known I was asking a question. Sorry about that! Springee (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Re this edit "OK, we seem to have some conflated changes...", I don't think that's quite right. The changes were not conflated; what we were discussing on TP was this edit: [7]. Also, one of the "oppose" votes is from an editor who recently received a TB; I don't think it should be given much weight.

In general, the consensus in these articles have been shifting, so enforcing an older, project-specific consensus does not seem productive. Would you consider self-reverting? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

K.e.c. I don't agree. First, consensus rules haven't changed and any shift in consensus would likely be due to just a different mix of involved editors. At some point we are dealing with editorial opinons rather than strict WEIGHT or NPOV issues. Second, if an editor made the edits prior to a TB, "their prior opinions cannot be discounted"[[8]]. Anyway, after a bunch of back and forths I noticed that the edits included both the body and lead. The debate was focused on the lead and I think at this point we can safely say there is no consensus for a change to the lead. As for the body, well we could debate that change but so far no one really was. I think the general view was the existing body could be improved. I don't think the added text helps, vs serves as a stat meant to alarm opinion. But I also don't feel like fighting that text. I would rather try to expand the section to add counter points rather than just use removal to keep things balanced. I appreciate the outreach. Springee (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you feel this way. Also, please do not post insults on editors' talk pages, even if retroatively. When I read your comment [9], "What a jerk." I thought! I'm guessing it did not feel that great to be called a "jerk", did it? Please keep such thoughts to yourself. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't take the jerk comment as an insult! I was the one who was being a jerk! I was getting mad thinking you were ignoring my question when, in fact, the communication failure was my fault, not yours. Anyway, it was not meant to be an insult in any way! Please accept my apologizes if that wasn't clear. Springee (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Still because I "had pinged" you twice... came across is off. We are not employees at other editors' beck and call. Frankly, I did not want to post to that page because of comments like these: [10] & [11], and the pinging was getting too much. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

À la guerre comme à la Wikipedia

I've seen fancier user-pages in Wikipedia, fancier and flashier and far more glamorous than yours. I never seen a better one. Carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

On your piece in The Bugle

I forgot to write a comment when I first read the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading your piece on the "Clean Wehrmacht" in last month's issue of The Bugle. I don't edit much in the area of military history myself, but I'm familiar with the use of dubious literature as a source. I have a theory that users who are editing in good faith fail to realize that they're using shoddy sources because of a subconcious assumption that something is a reliable source simply because it's published/printed, despite the fact that plenty of unsavory figures and groups have access to printing presses. Obviously some users are just blatantly POV-pushing, but I think that a not unsubstantial amount of the problematic edits come from people who just need to be a little more critical toward their sources. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 16:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@InsaneHacker: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Luftwaffe

You might take a look at Luftwaffe article and how it rejected terror bombing... --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: I can't be the "Nazi hunter" for everything :-). The community needs to step up at some point. But, in all seriousness, thank you for expanding the Horst Boog article; I noticed that about his writing too. My impression was that Boog was using memoirs of Luftwaffe generals rather uncritically in Germany and the Second World War. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The community needs to step up at some point. Could you supply a library, even if only to inform the tastes of other editors? Several of the brass at WP:MILHIST have libraries. Sturmvogel 66 specifically comes to mind, which is handy for Operation Majestic Titan. –Vami_IV✠ 19:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It's more, editors for certain areas of interest need be more involved and others need to use better discernment as to sources; but, this is true in areas outside of military history, as well; in biographical and political articles, for example. As far as starting a library page, that is easy enough. You can follow my example, if you wish. Kierzek (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Bookmarked, thank you. –Vami_IV✠ 19:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Library

@Vami IV: My library is at User:K.e.coffman/Library, although I need to update the list. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

K.e., you may want to add an icon link to the page. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kierzek: I saw the one on your user page, which seemed a bit large. Do you know of anything that would fit on the top bar, i.e. next to the GA icons? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know of a top bar icon, but as to the one I use, you can make it any size you wish; after the "png", change the "px" size, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Good lord

I hadn't paid a ton of attention before, but I had no idea how much the entire WW2 section of Wikipedia had been overrun by wehraboos. I hope you come out of the current arbcom case about it in one piece, you seem to be someone extremely dedicated to fixing it. Jtrainor (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Not being familiar nor having experience with the process I wander if there is a way of helping in the ongoing Arb case. In an amicus curiae capacity, sort of way. :-) The Gnome (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, pass me the stick grenades. –Vami_IV✠ 07:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Gnome, Vami_IV, and Jtrainor: thanks for your support, anybody can add evidence to the evidence page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence, but only if they have evidence, with diffs — it's not for discussion or sharing opinions. The scope is defined at the top of the evidence page.

Later, when the workshop page opens: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop, discussion in a prescribed format will be possible there. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HIAG/archive1#Source review from Ealdgyth

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HIAG/archive1#Source review from Ealdgyth. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Stefan Batory Foundation

In regard to this revert and edit summary [12] - the Stefan Batory Foundation is quite notable (partly why it has a Wikipedia article). While I understand that westerners may not have heard of it, it's actually one of the most active and well recognized think tanks in Eastern and Central Europe, with, at least in the past, a who's-who of democratic activists, notable personalities and prominent academics. Likewise Aleksander Smolar is notable - this being English Wikipedia, nobody's gotten around to creating an article on him (though there is one for his brother, Eugeniusz Smolar) See pl:Aleksander Smolar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Thank you for your message. I copied it to the article's Talk page and responded there: Talk:Jan_T._Gross#Stefan_Batory_Foundation. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see you weighing in on Paul...

I have no hopes that what I just researched will make any difference. Hell, even my first husband's self-published book is held by more libraries than some of Paul's works (and it's been out of print for 20 years)! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)