User talk:K.e.coffman: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:12, 26 March 2019

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Goldgenie page

Hi @K.e.coffman: as I am sure you are aware from my talk page I created draft:goldgenie under full COI disclosure in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You deleted the draft because you believed it was "unambiguous advertising". I created the draft by going over everything that had been written about the topic in independent, reliable sources and aggregating that information into an encyclopaedia entry. Could you please specify which parts of the draft you believe were an advertisement? So I can re-create the draft without the offending sentences. Thanks Turtle neck ninja (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Turtle neck ninja: Whether a page meets WP:G11 criterion for speedy deletion is not dependent on who the author of the page is and whether there's a COI. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @K.e.coffman: I am aware of the criteria for WP:G11 but thank you for reiterating it to me. My question was, which parts of the draft did you deem to be an advertisment? I am happy to recreate the draft without anything you would deem to be an advert. Also, you mentioned you deleted the page because you believed it was an advert, does this mean that you believe the topic is notable, you just thought the prose were too advertorial? I would be interested to hear your comments on this. Kind regards, Turtle neck ninja (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Turtle neck ninja: I would not suggest recreating the draft. Beyond promotionalism, it's a non-viable draft that does not meet WP:NCORP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: I didn't ask you if the draft met WP:NCORP I asked you if the topic met WP:NCORP as you can see from the references the topic has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, independent from the topic. Does the topic meet WP:NCORP? Turtle neck ninja (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Turtle neck ninja: No, in my opinion, the topic does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman:I would be interested to hear how you came to this conclusion as the topic has received significant converage in reliable independent sources which include the BBC. This source here was used to support the notability of the topic. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dragonsden/entrepreneurs/labanroomes.shtml Turtle neck ninja (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Kamenev Rollback

Hi, noticed you undid my edit. What does 'non-defining' mean in your edit note? For the record Kamenev had a Jewish father ^[1] Not sure what 'non-defining' could be referring to in this context. For instance, if I decided to identify as non-Russian, that wouldn't actually make me a non-Russian given that one of my parents was Russian.

I look forward to your clarification. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TorontonianOnlines: It seems that you are unduly preoccupied with "Jewishness"; it's a bit creepy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does not address my question whatsoever. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lindemann, Albert S. Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. Cambridge University Press. p. 430. ISBN 0-521-79538-9.

You have neither responded to me nor addressed my points and have furthermore proceeded to delete further biographical information off the same page. I don’t wish to edit war so can you please respond here. Thanks. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's apparently more; pls see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:TorontonianOnlines. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion here: #User:TorontonianOnlines. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation of the Kalmyks

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Deportation of the Kalmyks has been completed.

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

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bagration

Saw this on your userpage. While generally the Polish underground was opposed to Nazi Germany, in the narrow circumstances of (modern day) Belarus (particularly Nowogródek) and Lithuania - from the end of 1943 and particularly in 1944 - some Polish units were allied and supplied by Nazi Germany (Pilch and Swida are notable examples) - and fought against the Soviet advance. See Zimmerman 275-298. Now - I'm not sure how I'd place these Polish partisan units in the order of battle, but they did exist. The Polish underground were in a complex position - to an extent, their "game plan" at this stage in the war was to delay the Soviet advance in the East while trying to gain control of turf in the West. The failed Warsaw Uprising being an attempt to present "facts on the ground" of independence, supported by the US/UK - if the Nazis were more rational (by this stage of the war in the East - rationality was the last thing one could say of Hitler's strategy) then they would've pulled back (as opposed to crushing the rebellion themselves, which they did) - leaving a Polish buffer rebellion/state between their retreating forces and the Soviets (instead of committing a few divisions and losing some 25k casualties to the rebellion). As someone with Game theory/finance background - this is a rather clear failure of rational choice theory (as the desperate Polish move (which could be seen as a rational calculus) had a chance of succeeding if the Nazis were a rational player).Icewhiz (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: One of the Soviet Fronts did have a Polish corps; I had thought that "Poland" in the infobox referred to them. But when I saw |combatant2 = {{flag|Soviet Union|1936}}<br>{{flagdeco|Polish Underground State|1944}} [[Polish Underground State|Poland]], I chuckled. That was in 1944, a year after Polish gov in exile and the Soviet Union broke off diplomatic relations. There was some on-the-ground cooperation with the AK, such as around Wilno, but to list the underground state as a co-belligerent in the infobox was a bit much.

Speaking of Bagration, I was thinking of expanding and sourcing the article. If you have any interest in WWII campaigns, I would welcome your input. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong - you were right to remove this, as a few partisan units with local arrangements... Well. The Polish corps in the Soviet army was the future army in the PRL (communist Poland) - indeed not aligned with the government in exile.Icewhiz (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - and I missed this was on the side of the Soviet Union - yes definitely not. Some Home Army units in the east were aligned (ceasefire + supplied by) the Nazis against the Soviets - the Home Army however claims these units were acting "against orders". I probably wouldn't place this in the infobox, but it might be worth mentioning somewhere in the body.Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?

See this comment. Paul Eisen's record is rather clear. Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Denial — not just a river in Egypt. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, I guess I'll just file this one in the back of my mind as it never crossed my mind that being nice to a certain type of people is a goal. Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: If there are more of such utterances, it may be worth looking into the edit history & filing an AN report. Compare with #Lev Kamenev Rollback. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for your review of the 'Minetest' article, K.e.coffman. The link to 'WP:NGAME' will be helpful in my further editing. Again thank you and have a wonderful day, -- Gryllida (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gryllida: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megargee

Hi, I see you have nominated Megargee for GA, I think you might need a cite for his year of birth. I was interested to read of Inside Hitler's High Command; do you have a copy and is it an engaging read? I purchased The Myth of the Eastern Front last year based on your references to it and found it interesting and easy to get through (I struggle with books that are a bit dry). I've been meaning to use the Myth book to improve the Fritz Bayerlein article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: thanks; I added a citation for the DOB. Re: Inside Hitler's High Command, the first entry in Geoffrey P. Megargee#External links is his YouTube lecture based on the book. I found it engaging an look into the inner workings of the German High Command. The chapter dealing with the crisis of the Soviet counteroffensive in Dec 1941 was especially interesting. Megargee has a more recent lecture looking at the topic from a slightly different angle which you might also find interesting: "What Made the Nazi Military Work?". --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take a look. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Storage Affiliates Trust page

Hello @K.e.coffman:,

I am reaching out in response to your March 12, 2019 rejection of my page for National Storage Affiliates Trust. You noted that it did not pass WP:ORG. I would like to offer some clarifying information as well as inquire about any specific steps you might advise I take to better position this page to succeed.

When I previously submitted the article, a separate editor, @Drewmutt:, placed it back in the sandbox with the direction to ensure all sourcing was third party sourcing. In response, I replaced one of the links and clarified that the company's Form 10Q, which I cite twice, is considered factual by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. All other citations are to news reporting and interviews with unbiased reporters in unrelated, independent trade publications and national publications that comment upon the self storage space or the commercial real estate industry. None of these news articles appear to me to be sponsored articles or advertising, but rather seem to be organic coverage of deals or an interview responding to the industry's interest in the CEO. I then re-submitted the page and received your reply.

I have reviewed the notability standards for companies again, and recognize that the five primary criteria are (1) significant coverage in (2) multiple (3) independent (4) reliable (5) secondary sources. I believe that this submission complies with these criteria, and would appreciate any guidance if that belief is incorrect. Over the 6 sentence submission, I scrupulously cited 17 unique sources to be sure that each statement of fact was supported by a citation.

Extended discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(1) Every single source features National Storage Affiliates Trust or one of its subsidiary operators, meeting the "significant coverage" standard within each article. These articles range from reporting property acquisitions by NSAT; covering stock analysis provided by analysts at unrelated, independent banks; and lauding the joint ventures that NSA has participated in.
(2) I consider 17 unique third party sources to be multiple, but if you recommend that I add more citations to the submission, I am happy to in order to better meet this threshold. I added a few additional pieces of coverage bellow in the fourth bullet point.
(3) The only source that was not independent reporting by a third party industry-specific magazine was the company's 10Q (cited twice) which, as previously mentioned, is recognized as factual by the SEC. All other sources were recognizably independent institutions such as Nasdaq or were independent commercial real estate trade magazines or highly respected self storage-specific news sources that rely upon reporting from independent journalists. I did not reference a single press release or paid byline by an NSA executive/employee.
(4) Reliable sources (hyperlinked to various of their articles on NSA) cited in this submission include nationally recognized publications such as GlobeSt, Bisnow, CoStar, and Nareit, as well as highly regarded trade and regional sources and papers such as Inside Self Storage, Denver Business Journal, Crains Detroit Business, and Benzinga. Other articles from nationally recognized publications featuring NSA that I did not initially include in the submission for providing too much information include this Denver Business Journal article, Commercial Property Executive, and this second GlobeSt article. These magazines and papers carry great cache within the commercial real estate industry and, like the other sources cited, have reputations for fact checking and accuracy.
(5) The only source that technically doesn't meet the "secondary" threshold is the 10Q that NSA filed with the SEC. I only cited the 10Q to assure readers that the most recent numbers regarding NSA's AUM, portfolio size by square foot, and number of properties was accurate. All other statements are supported by articles with independent news staff or independent analysts, who certainly possess their own opinions. That being said, since I initially submitted this page for consideration, NSA has filed its annual - and much more detailed - 10K with the SEC, which is independently audited and verified. I've updated my submission to include the more recent figures from this filing, and I believe the fact that this document has been audited and verified should also serve to support my assertion that it is valid for citation.

I have also realized that there may be two more areas with room for clarification. In case you were uncertain whether any individual self storage REIT might qualify as sufficiently notable to require a unique page, I would like to point you to the pages linked below:

Wikipedia has approved single pages for these self storage REITs, provided here in the order of Inside Self Storage's 2018 rankings by size: (1) Public Storage, (2) Extra Space Storage, (3) Life Storage, (4) CubeSmart, (6) U-Haul International, (7) StorageMart, (11) W.P. Carey, (12) Simply Self Storage, (13) National Storage REIT, (16) World Class Holdings, (37) The Lock Up Self Storage, among others. Many Wikipedia editors have deemed individual self storage REITs to be sufficiently notable. National Storage Affiliates Trust was ranked #5 on this list, and is the only one in the top without a Wikipedia page.

Additionally, if you were concerned that NSA is not a large enough player within the self storage space to qualify as notable within the industry and deserve a unique Wikipedia page, I am eager to clarify. As mentioned above, Wikipedia has actually granted unique pages to companies with smaller self storage portfolios than NSA:

These companies include, as reported by Inside Self Storage, U-Haul International, StorageMart, W.P. Carey, Simply Self Storage, National Storage REIT, World Class Holdings, and the Lock Up Self Storage Company. NSA holds a larger self storage portfolio by square footage than each of these companies.
Additionally, although U-Haul is driven by other sectors in addition to self storage, Sparefoot reported that U-Haul drew lower annual revenue from self storage in 2018 ($323.9m) than NSA did ($330.89m).

Therefore, when considered according to annual revenue as well as square footage, National Storage Affiliates Trust is certainly a comparable and notable REIT within the self storage industry and should qualify equally for a unique page.

Of course, those concerns may not have been the issue with the submission at all, and I would be happy to address any of your questions - I just wanted to make sure you had all of the relevant information. If you have any thought on how I might proceed with re-submitting the page for consideration, or edits to the page to better clarify, I would greatly appreciate your time.

Thanks very much, and apologies for the novel-length message.

Aislinnlily (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Aislinnlily[reply]

@Aislinnlily: please see WP:PAID. If you are being compensated for your edits, you must disclose this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in March - click on "March" for travel pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter G Demers

Hello - Congratulations on your award for distinguished editing. I've trimmed my entry on Peter G Demers considerably. I also have full rights to the image and the context pictured in the certificate. I am submitting the page for your review. Thank you. MarionPB (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarionPB: I Would let another reviewer handle it. The draft is in the queue and will be reviewed in due time. Meanwhile, you still need to provide financial disclosure on your User page. Please see WP:PAID for more details. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Speer

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For rescuing Albert Speer from almost certain delisting. Szzuk (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Szzuk: no, thank you — since you are doing most of the work. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle Factory

Hello, I saw that you removed the article I wrote about Triangle Factory, I'm quit upset about this since I worked on it with other creators. I got help and advice from other wikipedians to remove certains things, such as peacock words and I did. I'm under te impression the article could not be seen as an advertisement anymore. I admit that in the beginning I used too much peacock words and internal links, but after 2 weeks of cleaning up the article (and having creators tell me it was good now) I am sure that it was a factual article with enough references to establish notability. However, you seemed to think otherwise and just deleted the whole article instead of marking it for improvement. The article told me to to contact you if I wanted to have the contents back for improvements, so I would like to do that. And If it is possible I would like to ask you to give me some feedback on what caused you to just delete the article when it clearly wasn't an advertisement.

[1] Lindemann, Albert S. Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. Cambridge University Press. p. 430. ISBN 0-521-79538-9.

[1]

@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 |}
 :{{ping|Szzuk}} no, thank ''you'' — since you are doing most of the work. --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman#top|talk]]) 01:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
+==Triangle Factory==
+Hello, I saw that you removed the article I wrote about Triangle Factory, I'm quit upset about this since I worked on it with other creators. I got help and advice from other wikipedians to remove certains things, such as peacock words and I did. I'm under te impression the article could not be seen as an advertisement anymore. I admit that in the beginning I used too much peacock words and internal links, but after 2 weeks of cleaning up the article (and having creators tell me it was good now) I am sure that it was a factual article with enough references to establish notability. However, you seemed to think otherwise and just deleted the whole article instead of marking it for improvement. The article told me to to contact you if I wanted to have the contents back for improvements, so I would like to do that. And If it is possible I would like to ask you to give me some feedback on what caused you to just delete the article when it clearly wasn't an advertisement.