User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2019/July

Archives

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 3 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

Dragon's Eye Article

Some people on the Dragon's Eye article are reluctant to remove the White Nationalist references. Since you opposed them in the past, I was hoping you could help me out. Identity Evropa no longer uses the symbol so there's no need to associate the Dragon's Eye with racism anymore. DragonEye616 (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonEye616: I commented on the article's Talk page: Talk:Dragon's_Eye_(symbol)#Move Political Use to "see also". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transmed

Hello. Can you check if Transmed (distribution company) is a recreation of Transmed holding? You !voted delete at the AfD. More generally, as I made three edits today asking people if article Y is a recreation of article X, I am thinking an administrators' noticeboard dedicated to this question would be useful, for G4, NPP, SPI and COI. What are your thoughts? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Biwom: I'm not an admin, so I cannot see the deleted article. You could post to WP:AN for an admin to look. Alternatively, if there's an WP:NCORP failure, the article could be nominated for deletion, apparently again -- these two articles appear to be on the same subject. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Apologies for the bizarre message. Indeed, I was short on time, took a quick glance at that AfD and identified you wrongly as the one active admin... Anyway, if that article ever goes back to AfD, I will let you know. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in July! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ArtRabbit

Hi there, Thanks for looking over the article I wrote. It was rejected due to insufficient notability. Following this, I've meticulously combed through the relevant pages that explained what qualifies as sufficiently notable sources. I then altered a few of the sources (mostly places where I missed an author's name or a date) and created a chart to see whether the article met with the necessary criteria (see attached image). From as far as I can tell, the article should meet the requirements of having multiple sources that are significant, independent, reliable and secondary.

Would it be possible for you to revisit this and let me know whether this fulfils the criteria following my edits? I believe my initial sources prior to the most recent edit might've been a little messy, thus difficult to check whether or not they fulfilled the criteria for notability.

Thanks again for your time.

Chart demonstrating whether or not each source meets the criteria for sufficient notability of an article.

Sandy Di Yu (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandy Di Yu: In my estimation, the sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; it consists of passing mentions and self-promotion. Separately, if you have a conflict of interest and/or are being compensated for your edits, you need to disclose this on your user page. Please see WP:COI & WP:PAID. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K.e.coffman, Thanks for responding. I had originally disclosed a COI on the talk page of the page I made without realising that this was necessary on my own page as well. I've now added it to my own page. I'd like to mention that on the page you linked ( WP:COI ), it says "If you want to note the COI on your user page..." which does not dictate necessity. Maybe this should be changed to instead say "it's strongly encouraged to note the COI on your user page". As someone trying to follow instructions as accurately as possible, the differences between what is written on such pages and what I've been told by admin gets frustrating, and I'm still not entirely sure whether it's something I needed to do for the sake of best practice, or simply something I can do.

In regards to passing mentions and self-promotion, there are several sources I used that has neither and fulfils all the other criteria (see chart added previously). I understand your estimation is perhaps better tuned for this than my own, but for the sake of learning, I must ask how you estimate this. Have you for example picked up the book in question and read through the pages that I referred to? Or else read through the articles that I sourced? If so, what about these sources are "passing mentions" and "promotional"? Again, based on what was written on the page you linked to ( WP:CORPDEPTH ), there is very little to indicate how you'd estimate my sources to not fulfil the criteria. I would like to better understand not just for the article I've already written but for the sake of sourcing any other future articles I'd like to attempt.

If it was rejected on the basis of the COI, I would like to know if there's anything I can do about this. Otherwise, as I've seen that you have told others they can ask for a second opinion, is this also an option I can take?

Thanks again for taking the time to read this. Sandy Di Yu (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandy Di Yu: You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk; I do not plan to re-review the draft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is you role?

Are you a neutral administrator or a biased editor?Xx236 (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236: I believe you are referring to this: User talk:Xx236#WP:NPA. I find my request to be sufficiently clear. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Athisayangalude Venal

All the problems mentioned about the article by you have been addressed. Please review and approve it. Please let me know if there is something still wrong. Thanks in advance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Athisayangalude_Venal Annfrankedit (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Annfrankedit: The draft is in the queue and will be reviewed in due course. Alternatively, you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk; I do not plan to re-review the draft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division

Hi. Since 20th century Military History seems to be your area of interest and expertise, I am wondering if you wouldn't mind checking out this article, this article to see if it is acceptable in the Military History project here on Wikipedia. According to my standards it is not because it needs independent reliable sourcing. But maybe there is some sort of exception in the Military History project. I can see the article's value as informational, but does it deserve an article on Wikipedia? Maybe you can ping me and let me know. Thanks in advance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Steve Quinn: I don't write articles on military units, so my suggestion would be to review WP:MILUNIT. You can also ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Brigades and BCTs are generally seen as notable per MILUNIT. I'd hazard a guess the 1st Brigade of the 82nd (one the most "popular" American units in terms of popular audience writing) probably has quite a few sources available - e.g. a google-books search for "1st Brigade"+82nd+airborne comes up with quite a bit. If I were to challenge a brigade or a BCT (not sure that that's worthwhile) - a less "popular" unit would probably have less sources.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: and @K.e.coffman: thanks for both your inputs. Reviewing the article, this seems to be a noteworthy brigade, historically engaged in action going back to WWI. I wasn't interested in trying to AfD this article in the first place because I would be in unfamiliar territory. I'm guessing WP:MILUNIT would be interested in keeping this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: and @K.e.coffman:, it seems I have discovered another issue - this might be a duplicate article. If it's not, well then you can see how much I know about detailed military history. I left a message on the talk page of the Military History project. Feel free to take a look. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meskhetian Turks

Thank you for the GA review! Much appreciated!--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Franz Kurowski

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Franz Kurowski 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 3E1I5S8B9RF7 -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]