User talk:K.e.coffman

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)

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)

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)

Plata O Plomo Fat Joe and Remy Ma album

Hi could you please explain your revert of the article Plata O Plomo (Fat Joe and Remy Ma album) As it stands, the background is incorrect as the album is in reference to the Netflix series Narcos the reference given on the page does not relate to the album itself. Fat Joe has in interviews leading up to the album's release mentioned the Narcos series in relation to the album. Furthermore, the information I provided serves as actual background to how the album was brought about. For collaboration album examples see Watch the Throne, Distant Relatives, Collision Course (album) I'd imagine it'd be useful for a reader to know considering Fat Joe and Remy Ma's past differences this album was never likely to happen at one point. I do agree with the removal of the promotion section though as an artist talking about their own album there is obviously going to be a bias and does not benefit the reader of the page. Thanks Smush123 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Smush123: I had posted about the edit here: Talk:Plata_O_Plomo_(Fat_Joe_and_Remy_Ma_album)#YouTube used as source. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

User: Bossanoven

FYI - I saw you gave this user/editor notice as to a cat, but in this case you should know this user/editor was a sock banned quite some time ago. He was pretty wild on making new cats, I recall. Kierzek (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kierzek: I use Twinkle for AfD and PROD nominations; the tool notifies page creators automatically. But I agree, the editor's history is somewhat odd. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 8 March 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)

Günther Zaag

Hey I saw Günther Zaag during March Madness, and I thought it might lack notability, but I'm not as learned in what awards have been decided to make a person notable, could you advise? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Thanks, definitely nn; I nominated it for PROD. If you come across articles by the same article creator, there's about 80% chance that they are on non notable subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User Page

I was drawn here as you participated in an article for deletion that I also contributed to (pretty hopelessly, looking to stretch policy to keep. As you reasoned, it will probably be deleted). In any case, I just spent half an hour browsing your user page. In the past I had been bothered by how WWII articles seemed to praise the German side, for skill, valor, etc, etc, but I had no idea of the extent. I am utterly impressed, and I thank you for improving Wikipedia. Jd2718 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jd2718: Thank your for your comment! I hope you enjoyed. I usually get 'vandalism', 'obstructionism', 'we've been through this before', etc, so it was nice to get this message. Could you do me a favor and give your permission to change the section heading to "Super awesome user page"? :-) I'll then add it to the "Awards and kudos" section on my user page. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Feel free, you have my permission. Jd2718 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

your translation request M. Wittmann

Der Historiker Sönke Neitzel bezeichnet Wittmann als den „angeblich erfolgreichsten Panzerkommandanten des Zweiten Weltkrieges“ und konstatiert einen „Heldenkult um Wittmann“, der in kaum einem populären Buch über die Waffen-SS fehle. Laut Neitzel sind „Erfolgszahlen von hochdekorierten Panzerkommandanten […] mit einer gewissen Vorsicht zu behandeln“, da es sich im „Kampfgetümmel“ kaum zuverlässig ermitteln lasse, wer wie viele Panzer abgeschossen habe.

The historian Sönke Neitzel calls Wittmann "allegedly the most successful tank commander of the Second World War" and states a "heroic cult around Wittmann", which is hardly missing in a popular book on the Waffen-SS. According to Neitzel, "success numbers of highly decorated (means: many badges and medals) tank commanders [...] have to be treated with a certain caution", since in the "battle turmoil" it is hardly reliably to determine who shot as many tanks.

(german articles about e.g. german heroes of ww 2 u usually can forget. they are stupid and try always to humiliate them...) 106.76.56.66 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Soldiers' notability

Hi K.e.coffman, in response to your mail - feel free to ping or contact me in cases of doubt about notability regarding German soldiers. Please be aware, however, that I am not a regular contributor to the English Wikipedia project and do not want to get involved in lengthy arguments about its notability criteria as such. That is something for the local crowd to decide on. I do absolutely share your concern about improper characterization of German WWII soldiers on enWP, although I mostly write biographies about foreign nationals on deWP myself (being a German, as you may have guessed). Cheers, Prüm (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Prüm: Thank you for your message. The overall notability of the Knight's Cross winners (or lack thereof) have already been sufficiently established via this discussion at Notability (people): Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners.

It's been largely agreed that the award by itself is insufficient for notability; the subjects need to meet either other criteria of WP:SOLDIER (commanded a division or equivalent, held a general's rank or equivalent, etc) and / or GNG. But I do have questions about individual notability of those redirects that have been challenged, such as Erich Handke or Niels Bätge. What would your thought be on the notability of these subjects? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither meets the criteria to warrant an individual article, in my opinion. With Bätge, one could argue that he commanded a flotilla and participated in a major military operation in this role. But on the other hand, he is not even mentioned in the corresponding article, and his only other claim to fame seems to be his sinking of a mock carrier… Both wouldn't survive a deletion request in the German Wikipedia, which has similar, though slightly more strict, notability criteria. I think redirects would be in order in both cases. Prüm (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Thanks for closing a few discussions at CfD. Please note the instructions under Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Administrator_instructions#Process, esp. 6.1: If the decision is Delete, Merge, or Rename: (...) If you are a non-admin, (...) please do not close discussions that require any of the above 3 actions unless you are prepared to implement them manually, or an admin has agreed to help you.

In other words, it is up to the closer to execute the closing decision.

Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: I've seen other non-admin closures where a speedy deletion tag was placed on the page afterwards with the link to the XfD. If this is not a correct procedure, I can undo my closes. Please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, per WP:G6. Any admin can then "push the delete button" for real, provided that you've emptied the category beforehand. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: I've properly closed / emptied the first three; there were too many "fictional dandies" to empty manually, so I just undid the close. I think things are in order now, correct? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Your recent editing history at Kurt Knispel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk • contribs) 03:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)