User talk:K.e.coffman

[Nonsense accusations of] 1RR violation Russian interference

After having received the notice of Discretionary Sanctions relating to American Politics, you violated the 1RR restriction at "Russian interference". [1] [2]. Please undo one of those edits and continue your participation at talk. As I've tried to indicate on the talk page, some of what you are proposing represents changes to clearly established consensus on long talk threads among 10-20 editors. These include closed RfCs. Relatively short discussions over a few hours on talk, with a handful of editors having seen and participated, is not a good basis to make fundamental changes in the presentation of the subject. Consensus can change, and there's always room for improvement, but precipitous change without acknowledged consensus among those who recently created the standing version is not likely to result in stable improvement. At any rate, welcome to the article, but please undo one of your reverts. SPECIFICO talk 11:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I don't see a violation here. I implemented changes that was agreed upon at Talk: 17 agencies & Quote in the lead. Both were consensus edits.

You have then inserted a statement, in Wikipedia's voice, that was not supported by the source: "to undermine American democracy". The original quote of intelligence community's statement was: "Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process", which is quite different from "undermining democracy". I them removed it diff, which constitutes one revert by my count.

In any case, there's nothing for me to revert since another editor has added the quoted material: diff. I would suggests that dismissive comments such as ...being proposed for the purpose of (...) insinuating some unstated doubt...; Case closed, mission accomplished. Finito. Pass the mustard.; You're welcome to join the discussion and the editing here of course, but please... are not appropriate. Nobody needs a blessing from other editors to edit an article or participate in discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, you're new to the article and maybe to American Politics, which is why I posted the notice here and why I am taking the time to engage you on your talk page. You did violate 1RR and it is a bright-line with no "but it was consensus" "my revert was an improvement" or other such exceptions. If you'd prefer, you can ping a few Admins who have been involved in these DS matters, and you can discuss this with them, because AE threads are not a good use of editors' time and most editors, when they inadvertently cross the line, have learned simply to undo the violation and move on to more productive issues. But ignoring or denying the 1RR rule is not helpful. And of course, if there were a few words that you could have added to make the lonstanding consensus text more closely conform to the cited source, that would not have been a revert and it would have been consistent with what I and at least one other editor stated on the talk thread yesterday.

The two diffs posted at the top of the thread are the same, so it's not clear to me what I'm being asked to undo. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how that got garbled. Now I see there were 3: That one, plus the following two more: here goes, [3] [4] SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Only one of the disputed edits was a revert, namely the 06:43 edit which directly reverts Specifico's prior addition at 03:04. The other diffs mentioned are regular, step-by-step editing. As discussed in prior cases, editors must understand that not every deletion of text is a revert: there must be a direct link with another editor's prior recent action. Otherwise the whole encyclopedia would grind to a halt: nothing could ever be deleted because every piece of text has been added some day by somebody. — JFG ^talk 05:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about "Bavarian Daily"

If you're interested (and you by no means have to be!), you can see the genesis of the "Bavarian Daily" taunts here: [5] [6]. Rather than describing the "incident," I'll let you make up your mind about it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Thanks for the background. As I suspected, it was mostly about bringing down the opponent. I don't take kindly to bullying and other underhanded tactics, so when I see it, I say something: diff :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Thanks, I appreciate it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Rotherham

Just curious how you stumbled upon that discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Only you've never edited it and it's not on your watchlist, but you appeared there very quickly to revert my edits? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: It was being discussed on a Talk page on my watch list. No, I was not following you around :-) . And, obviously, I disagreed with the nationality / ethnicity being called out for no apparent reason in the fist para; that's why I made the edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, there was very much an apparent reason, but that will come out in the discussion no doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I commented at Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Recent_edit; let's continue the discussion there. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, your edit has been reverted, to retain the status quo. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Another facepalm

I've just fixed up the article on Hitler's finance minister, Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk. It argued that he was a non-political functionary and gave no reason for him being found guilty of war crimes and imprisoned. It turns out that he was in the role for political reasons, supported the Nazis and their agenda, played a significant role in the Holocaust and laundered money. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Yep, I'm sure there are more of these to be found :-) . Thanks for taking care of this one. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating

Thanks for nominating most of Mjbmr's articles which fail most policies. I know they take a lot of time. If you have any time here are some more articles that he created that are questionable: OmarGoshTV, JoogSquad, The Royal Stampede, Brian Atlas (sports executive), Brian Atlas (YouTube personality), Danny Duncan (YouTube personality), Andrea Wendel, Alex Mandel, Jakob Owens, Brian Brough, Dennis Roady and BigDawsTv. Wow. Thanks. Hawkeye75 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye75: Thank you for your message. If you use Wikipedia:Twinkle, nominating articles for deletion is not that hard. Try it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, never knew that, thanks. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

James Garrison

Good afternoon. I'm just enquiring about the reason that soak.com's Wikipedia profile [[7]] has been removed? Can you please provide further information on this so we can try and remedy it to get the profile reinstated? We felt the profile was very factual and steered clear of any advertising. It was very much based around the company's history. Hopefully you can provide some feedback. Many thanks for your help. James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.223.254 (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

AfD hero

	AfD hero
	Thanks for voting on my AfD! Rhombus (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Dapi89 has started a discussion concerning you

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Thanks. See also: WP:3RRN: Dapi89. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I wondered why he didn't immediately charge into AN/I as is his wont. Now I know. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Shame, as I was really looking forward to the evidence that he might present as to the alleged tag teaming. :-)

In a way, as you put it, it's a bigger issue, with some GA / A-class / FA articles having deficiencies in both sourcing and not adhering to summary style. This attempted GAR is instructive: GAR:Der Panzergraf. The comments from outside MilHist include:

• If this is a typical A-Class or GA-class military biographical article, then I would suggest that there is a systemic issue for articles of this kind
• If a reader is interested in that level of detail, they will go to the sources, but indiscriminately including details just because it's provided in biographies on the subject is unencyclopedic,

while MilHist community respond with: The more detail the better (that's an actual quote).

One editor eloquently put it: "This is a GAR for a 10,000+ word essay full of Nazi WP:FANCRUFT that apparently meets the GA criteria of a wikiproject with its own set of rules for what's encyclopedic". Do you have any suggestions or ideas on how this may be tackled, of have any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have any positive suggestions. I returned in December after a months-long partial wikibreak and part of the reason was the MilHist Project. After attempting to edit in accord to my understanding of the general rules I was informed that I was wrong because of some internal project policies. Despite having actual past professional credentials in the military history field, I was then informed that I was obviously unqualified. I occasionally edited in the meantime as IP's, but didn't resume my account until recently. Imagine my surprise when after returning, I find that wikiprojects in general are essentially dead, with the notable exception of MilHist. In theory, dragging some of these policies into the light of the Village Pump or some other general-usage place will result in their correction, but I don't hold out much hope. There will be the predictable appeals to authority and ownership, and huge drama, likely for little gain. I won't start such a discussion myself. The alternative is to "pick off" some of the more egregious policies one by one. If you want to start such a discussion, I will certainly participate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Ah, internal project policies rings some bells; I have a section on this: "Your are not from around here" :-) . I've also been told, when I first started editing, to to restrict [myself] to making the language more neutral where necessary" or otherwise expect to be reverted on sight.

In any case, thanks for the feedback -- I generally try to avoid the drama boards, and I agree that they may not always be productive. However, there have been areas where I was able to move things forward such as the Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners. Bringing the matter to wider community's attention has definitely helped there. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

About the Estonian police battalion ....

Not sure if you have access to the Oxford Bibliographies database, but for "The Holocaust in the Soviet Union" - they list The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945. Vol. 2, Ghettos in German-Occupied Eastern Europe as one of their recommended reference books. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Thank you for your message. Yes, I'm aware of the source; at the moment, it appears that The Encyclopedia, Yitzhak Arad and the summary statement from the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity all agree that the Battalion took part in the massacre. However, I'm still awaiting the more detailed information that editor Nug has promised me at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Conclusions_of_the_Commission.

I will probably create an article on The Encyclopedia one day; surprisingly, there's not one yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - guess I didn't make myself clear. I was pointing out that Oxford UP considers the Encyclopedia pretty reliable as they recommend it in one of their bibliographies. I figured if you faced any more questions about it being a "tertiary" work that isn't reliable, that it being on the Oxford Bibliographies would rather counteract that. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I'm aware of The Encyclopedia and consider it to be a reliable source ; that's why I was surprised to see it being challenged. Hence the threat at RSN. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

[Alleged] tendentious editing

Did you really think hiding a thread that rebuts your rationale for deleting the list counts as hatting an "off topic discussion"? If you continue to edit in such a disruptive manner, we will be heading to ANI. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Re: ANI, yes please :-). Re: AfD discussion, please see WP:ADHOM: "The debate is not (...) about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors".

Amusing, tendentious editing, ridiculous in the purest sense of the word could also fall under WP:NPA; please avoid unsubstantiated accusations and belittling of other editors. See for example: Accusing others of tendentious editing.

In any case, your rebuttal have failed to convince other voters so far (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highly-decorated German pilots of ground attack aircraft), so I'm perfectly fine with its staying unhatted. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

List of books about Nazi Germany

If you run across any books published by J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing and/or any other questionable publishing house on that page that you recognize as such, feel free to delete them. We really only want substantive and reliable sources on the list. --Obenritter (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Obenritter: What would you say about having a section on "Revisionist and apologist books"? I think that may be worthwhile for those titles known to fit this category of literature. Instead of sweeping such books under the rug, so to speak, they can be listed in the article instead under a proper section. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

FAC Nomination "Battle of Prokhorovka"

Hello, I nominated "Battle of Prokhorovka" for Featured Article. Your input is very appreciated. EyeTruth (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@EyeTruth: Thanks for your message. I had a quick look and have a question -- what would you say about breaking out Operation Roland into a separate article? The main article is already quite long, and this operation can be briefly discussed and then linked to. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Walter Riedel

Walter Riedel your post has Dr. Riedel living Germany without ever having visited the US. In 1953 he was working for an aerospace/aviation company and was being cautioned re: UFOs

link— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:8302:8B40:FCE9:798E:86B8:3F3B (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I've only edited the article minimally; I don't really have more to add. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)