User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2016/December

Archives

Bodhtree

Because you participated in the previous deletion discussion for Bodhtree, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the renewed one. agtx 17:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Agtx: thanks for letting me know; I hope it takes this time. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your e-mail

Thanks for your request for my input, but I prefer not to communicate off-wiki. Sandstein 20:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Np, thanks for letting me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Evola

OK, what did I walk into here? I read about the guy, go to Wikipedia, find an article that whitewashes Evola (even based on what little I know), then get attacked by two reputable editors! I have looked into Evola and the entire article is filled with distortions, many contradicted by the articles cited! How do we proceed here? Oh and sorry if I came on too strong - really. I have done good work in the past I'm proud of here. I don't always start out at high wiki standards, but I have learned and I will dedicate the time to good journalism. I have a point of view but I do not want distortions. This is why I often go to original sources. I feel that with some work, we here at Wikipedia can do better journalism than most journalists.Dlawbailey (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlawbailey: I removed some of the obvious fancruft / OR. I generally don't edit in the "far-right ideologue" areas; I believe I followed to the Evola article from the Troy Southgate one (he's a contemporary far-right personality and an "Anarcho-Nationalist" or some such. Good look with the article; I'll check in again when I get a chance. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlawbailey: I don't think that the removal of the entire Philosophy section was called for, given that some of it was cited, and from what I recall possibly to reliable sources. Suggest putting the cited material back and then opening the discussion if some of it seems problematic. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Rommel myth

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rommel myth 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Rommel myth

The article Rommel myth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rommel myth 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Medals

Dear editor,

I've inherited some medals from my aunt that my grandfather removed from Germans in WW2 and I'm trying to find out what they are. I spent three years in Iraq with the army and being a veteran this is really bothering me. I'd like to show them to you to get your opinion. Would you mind taking a look at them for me? If so do you have any way of receiving photographs?

Thanks, Gary Redleg 0924 (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redleg 0924: Sorry I cannot be of help here. You could try posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history; this is the noticeboard for the Military History project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi K.e.coffman. I saw some of your edits, specifically [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] I know some of those guys are shaky, but what you are doing is essentially stealth deleting. That's not how things work, such drastic changes to so many articles would need a larger discussions. Usually something like that gets decided at an AFD or is enacted by an admin. You cant just unequivocally decide that they dont meet our notability guidelines and effectively "delete" them. Can you give some light to your rationale? Dead Mary (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dead Mary: thank you for your comment. Yes, such discussion has taken place, please see a note at MilHist Talk Archives, with a link to the wider discussion. I will start adding a link to this as I go along, to indicate that this is not a unilateral action. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. It seems the community is informed about that. Dead Mary (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Barbarossa

Greetings. Thanks for your ongoing vigilance. While I am sure you get plenty of grief for your efforts, those of us who are real historians appreciate the academic quality and rigor you bring. Nonetheless, in lieu of our little debate about the strategic mistake of the delay concerning the push towards Moscow - please help get rid of these myriad references to TV documentaries in Operation Barbarossa when you can. Progress has been made but plenty more remains to do.--Obenritter (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to work on the TV show cites when I have time, as well. Even if it means having to use my old 1995 Glantz book. Kierzek (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Obenritter: I just got Hitler's Wehrmach by Rolf-Dieter Müller & I have two more books on order. I'll look how I can contribute to the article.

@K.e.coffman: Let me know what you think of that Müller book as I know it is pretty short, which is what discouraged me from purchasing it.--Obenritter (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. -- I've watched both documentaries a while back, and Battle for Russia did not leave a good impression; if I recall correctly the narrative repeated several times the theme of "highly professional Wehrmacht" and notes of what I call "selective empathy". Soviet Storm: World War II in the East is a recent production and is available in English on YouTube; it has a strong popular history vibe, but one of the writers on the show was Aleksey Isaev, who is a contemporary Russian historian and is reasonably well regarded for the work he has done based on Soviet archival materials. I believe some of his books have been translated into English. It would be interesting to cross check this material against the published sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Yeah - since I know one of the editors who worked on the Barbarossa page had some pretty strong right-wing leaning, I was concerned that some of the content of the documentary might even have been taken out of context. Moreover, it is best not to trust documentaries anyway as often times they sensationalize things and are not always real rigorous about dates. If you have not yet picked up Ben Shepherd's book, Hitler's Soldiers, you should consider it. You can likely glean quite a bit from it...I read it really fast as I have been busy with other projects, but it is very solid.--Obenritter (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Obenritter: I went through the citations to the documentary films and did not see anything obviously wrong or POV. I think they are okay for now, but will try to replace with better cites as time permits. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. Keep up the good work.--Obenritter (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your ongoing efforts in employing academic rigor to validate Wikipedia pages related to WW2. It is appreciated by many more people than you realize. Obenritter (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rommel Myth

Hello:

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

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

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: thank you -- much appreciated! K.e.coffman (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cover art of the The Myth of the Eastern Front book by Smelser and Davies.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cover art of the The Myth of the Eastern Front book by Smelser and Davies.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following the AfD nom for J.J. Fedorowicz ("a vehicle for expounding the views of Smelser et al"), why am I not surprised? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why NOTOC?

Could you explain why NOTOC is used? I don't see the advantage.★Trekker (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@*Treker: I find it useful when the TOC contains exclusively "maintenance" sections such as "See also"; "Notes"; "References" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks.★Trekker (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2016 (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 Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Franz Kurowski

The article Franz Kurowski you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Franz Kurowski for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants item 61 is meant to be an attempt to create a standardized notability rule for beauty pageant winners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waffen-SS in Popular Culture

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Waffen-SS in popular culture has been completed.

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

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Merry Christmas, thought I would pile on to the earlier thanks for your efforts in ensuring quality on WW2 articles. They are noticed and appreciated :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Hello K.e.coffman: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, GAB^gab 16:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message