User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2017/February

Bowling Green Massacre organization

Hi, I good faith reverted your edits, as the "alternative facts" and section break seem out of step with what we have been discussing on the talk page. Can you propose your strategy for reorganization first there? Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

86.90.43.5

You might want to join me in keeping an eye on this IP's edits, they seem to try to skew things in a pro-Nazi direction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

He's reverting, so you might look at his edits and fix where appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I see that the user is now blocked. Please feel free to ping me if this continues once the block is over. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll see what happens. I'm now working on balancing the Horst Wessel article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wehrmachtbericht

The article Wehrmachtbericht you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wehrmachtbericht 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Tsendiyn Munkh-Orgil

I was going through the list of Proposed deletions for lack of sources. I came across one on Tsendiyn Munkh-Orgil, the current foreign minister of Mongolia. I have removed it, but the article was the one contriburtion to date of User:Baikap. I am really saddened that a promising user who has potential to help work against systemic bias may be scarred off by a far too over eager deletion nominator. I moved the article to Tsend Munkh-Orgil after realizing this was the more common form of the name in sources. The way I did it was not ideal since it removed the back history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Johnpacklambert: I've placed a history merge tag on there. In the future if you need a technical move, an admin can do it at WP:RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Your Playboy edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1995 were all reverted. Why? Theres not authorized sources here? Richterer11111 (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Rona

Hi, why do you think, that chronology of names and development RONA glasworks is non-encyclopedic? I made a brief development based on historical facts which organizes the production program of glassworks too. I will give back this data. ok? thanks. --Karla1974 (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Karla1974: The article still contains uncited & promotional content; for example: Rona_glassworks#Chronology_of_development_and_organizational_changes and Rona_glassworks#Calendar_of_innovations. Do you happen to have a relationship with the company or in any other way affiliated with Rona? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am not in any relationship with the company, but I'm interested in this issue. Regarding the question about the calendar of innovations: this is mainly manufacturer and technology and design, those are what these companies to move further and further defines their focus. This of course also refers to the organizational changes of the company. Older people recall glassworks under the original name of the company, and of course, these organizational changes a lot said about the political life (socialism, velvet revolution, independence of Slovakia, ....).--Karla1974 (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Threats of a press attack on me for having been behind deleting an article

Nicole DiGiacobe has threatened to attack me and Wikipedia in the press. She is trying to argue I try to supress articles on successful women but is mainly kust a disgruntled fame junkie who was Miss Delaware USA. Evidently I am supposed to accept she is notable because she interned at the Delaware Supreme Court. I am not even sure there are any reliable sources that indicate that she did so. I dont know if this means she has a law degree and was a law clerk or if she means something else. I dont like her tone or the fact that she messaged me on my facebook account instead of making her comments on my Wikipedia talk page. I may have even misspelled her name. I grow tired of attempts to portray me as sexist. I have nominated lots of articles on men for deletion. Some were articles on football players both American and association. I am just hoping we do not get another total out of hand attack on Wikipediaby people who have not studied the issues as happened with the American women novelists category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC) John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• After doing some more searches I figured out the person in question had the article under the name Nicole Bosso. I am trying to see how we might have erred. I found this sentance "Their friends Nicole DiGiacobbe and Andrea Funk served as witnesses and Nicole also took photos." in this article [1]. This level of coverage is not striking me as major. This [2] is DiGiacombe's Linkein Profile. Unless every lifestyle blogger is notable, I think she has no ground to stand on. Wikipedia is already way to presentist without giving living people avenues to advocate for them to have articles on themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A quick search of Newspapers.com shows a number of articles from 2007 that feature her. Of course you're not going to have much luck looking for sources that are still available now, but of course you don't care because all you ever want to do is play the victim card. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Which all the more reinforces my view she has no understanding of Wikipedia notability. She thinks she is notable for being a photographer and a blogger, and even you have not claimed that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @Johnpacklambert: is this still an issue? I generally support deletion of BLPs on non-notable individuals, as it can be an invasion of privacy and harmful, rather than helpful. For example, see immediately above on the fan-crafty "List of Playboy playmates" which is apparently causing some distress. Let me know how I can help. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Tomas Gorny

There is so much more relevant information about Tomas, worthy of the encyclopedia, with better references than the official website of his company. Can we look at adding information that is more about him than about his company and the references of his company? Snowyplayer (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snowyplayer: thank you for your message. Are you by any chance affiliated with Gorny and / or his companies? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: No. I am an Indian entrepreneur and follow his leadership talks, training guides. I don't understand why interesting things about him are not mentioned in the right way. Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? Snowyplayer (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content

I supported your deletion at the Finnish article because it had been long-tagged, but looking at your contributions there would seem to be a pattern of section blanking due to lack of sources and, in many cases, when there's been no long-standing tag. While this would seem to be permitted by V, I have to caution you that it is pretty controversial and you're not helping your case by failing to (a) state in your edit summary that you have a concern that the material cannot be reliably sourced per BURDEN and (b) failing to preserve the deleted material on the talk page per PRESERVE. Neither are required in my opinion, but they show you're working in good faith. Even with them, it's controversial to do it repeatedly. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Thank you for your message and the feedback. Yes, these edits have originally been considered controversial and I've not got into this line of editing intentionally, but mostly by observing that many articles that deal with the WWII German war effort are, shall we say, POV-challenged. My user page contains a collection of various diffs to address these issues, which is really just the tip of the iceberg. (One of my favourite sections is Outstanding Achievements in Euphemismia; "His nose is long and straigh" is also pretty good).

It's true that I've been accused of "vandalism", "deletionism", of conducting a "misguided de-Nazification campaign", being "anti-German" (alternatively, being from German wikipedia), plus other offenses up to, and including, "McCarthyism" and "book burning" (see: discussion at MilHist Talk page) :-).

Much of the material in question is a throwback to the times when Wikipedia content was routinely based on non RS web sites, such as AxisHistory, AchtungPanzer!, Aces of the Luftwaffe, and various Waffen-SS fan pages, often uncited at all. Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards have been significantly tightened since then. A consensus has also developed that many subjects lack sufficient RS to build NPOV articles, and these articles are being redirected to lists (see: Notability in Knight's Cross winner articles).

My reputation apparently extends to the German wiki as well; see this discussion (German Soldiers!) where the article that I started, Waffen-SS in popular culture, gets a favourable mention. In general, my editing in this area is informed by the research I've done for this article as well as for HIAG, a post-war Waffen-SS lobby group.

I have also responded at Talk:Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS#Sourced content. BTW, I liked your edit summary and I've used it here: diff. I will keep your suggestions in mind; thanks again. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You probably don't want to hear from me, but here is what I think anyway. First off, about 70% of what you are doing is great work and is of excellent benefit to this site. You are right that there is so much material about WWII taken from fan sites, blogs, and unreliable places that needs to be removed and I applaud you for doing it. Now, this other 30% is obviously your activity of blanking SS articles of dates and ranks. A lot of users on this site are rightfully thinking you might be getting involved with WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP issues and you and I both know the reason why you are blanking that material is that you dont think it should be on Wikipedia because of some view about the SS. We are not stupid here and any fool can see that you are only targeting SS articles. If you really were concerned about this intrinsic detail issue, or felt that only certain high level awards should be listed, then why are you not removing the National Defense Service Medal for U.S. articles or the Jubilee Medals (for which you had to do absolutely nothing except be alive during a certain year) from the Soviet ones. We know why...and so do you. Now...here is what I suggest (take it or leave it). Maybe give some kind of warning that you are about to blank a large amount of rank or award material about the SS on the talk page or through use of the "citation needed" tag, or both. If you give people a chance to cite it, and they don't, then it can be removed. The way you are doing it now, simply showing up out of the blue and blanking without warning large sections of articles, is offensive to some and could be argued to be WP:DISRUPT. These are also just suggestions, and at the end of the day I think you are a good editor. I dont plan to stymie any more of your efforts, I just ask you maybe step back and look at how what you are doing is being perceived by others. Thank you and good night. -O.R.^Comms 04:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@OberRanks: No, I welcome all comments, and thank you for yours. As I asked over at Talk:Paul Hausser, we who? And I'm not "targeting" the SS articles exclusively; see for example: Notability in Knight's Cross winner articles.

Have you considered that perhaps the SS and the Waffen-SS hold a certain fascination, and these article tend to generally be much more adorned vs a "simple" Wehrmacht general? In addition, most article that I edit have already been tagged, months and years ago. This is plenty of chances. However, if an article on a high-profile SS man has not been previously tagged, I will tag it first.

Separately, you were right -- this is quite ghastly: Wesley_L._Fox#Military_awards. Plus the "Diver Insignia" and "Vietnam Parachutist Badge", etc. Who puts these things together? :-) BTW, I edited that article; we'll see what happens. I even got to use my favourite edit summary: "unneeded iconography". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Waffen-SS "Guru" Section

K.E., your section on "Waffen-SS Gurus", especially some of the more negative statements about the authors in question, appear to be in violation of Wikipedia:User_pages#Advocacy_or_support_of_grossly_improper_behaviors_with_no_project_benefit, sub-section defamation. I would suggest that you remove this section to avoid your user page possibly being reported as a violation of WP:User. A Wikipedia user page should not really have lists of living individuals with disparaging remarks. Please consider removing this. -O.R.^Comms 05:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@OberRanks: Thanks. Most of these were notes from the early encounters with the "Alternate reality" of the German WWII militaria world on Wikipedia (see: User talk:Nick-D/Archive 14#Concerns).

Much of the content was eventually absorbed into the Waffen-SS in popular culture article. I revised that section by converting portions of it to Wikilinks, adding citations where appropriate and removing personal commentary. Please have a look: User:K.e.coffman#Potentially_problematic_sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking my comment seriously. Mark Yerger is alive and well, does frequent research, and probably would have raised an issue. Thanks again. -O.R.^Comms 15:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

An ANI against me

An ANI was just opened against me, where people are even floating the idea of banning me from participating in article deletion discussions. This to me is very disturbing. I am trying not to over react, but the whole thing is coming off as an attack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)