Jump to content

User talk:K.e.coffman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 51.211.175.29 (talk) at 01:28, 14 November 2018 (→Draft:Chuck Easttom). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Roman Töppel on Franz Kurowski

The paper by Roman Töppel on Franz Kurowski has recently been published. doi:10.15500/akm12022018. I thought you might want to take a look. There is an abstract in English. Let me know if you need further help with the language. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Assayer: The article is also posted to the online portal of the Military History Working Group, so I was able to read with with the help of Google translate: The whole war as an adventure: The writer and "historian" Franz Kurowski.
It was interesting to see Töppel's comment on how Kurowski's tales made it into even serious literature in the English language, such as "Dennis E. Showalter, Armor and Blood. The Battle of Kursk, New York 2013, p. 188, 203, 208f". I read this book, and, while it was generally pretty good, I recall wondering where the "up-close-and-personal" bits were coming from. They sounded a touch Über-Soldat to me. Now I know :). --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Assayer: Turns out that I already included Töppel in the Panzer Aces (book series) page -- his paper appears to be based on the materials he presented at the So war der deutsche Landser event:
I've learned about the conference while developing the article on Jens Westemeier. Interesting how things are interconnected. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Craig_Proctor

Thank you for reviewing my proposed page on Craig Proctor. You have deleted the page, marking it as unambiguous advertising. When I wrote this page, I researched to understand Wikipedia guidelines and to write the page objectively. My goal was to present only factual information that I could back up with acceptable third party sources. As a specific guideline, I paralleled the format of another Wikipedia page for an individual in the same field (i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ferry). There are many similarities between Craig Proctor and Tom Ferry both in terms of the work they do and their international presence, so I felt this would be a relevant page to parallel. I do know Craig Proctor but I am not being paid by him to generate his page, and I have nothing personally or financially to gain from its creation. I would like to revise the page so it passes Wikipedia standards but it is not clear to me which part of my deleted entry is considered advertising/promotion and would appreciate your help in highlighting which statements are problematic. Thank you in advance for your guidance.ProducerSMS (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ProducerSMS: the draft was deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Also, if you have a conflict-of-interest in re: this subject, please declare it on your user page. Please see the message on your Talk page: User talk:ProducerSMS#Managing a conflict of interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I do understand that you deleted the draft as you felt it was unambiguous advertising or promotion, but I would like to understand how the Craig Proctor draft page is any different from the published page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ferry which is a page on an individual in the same field as Craig Proctor. Why is this page authorized and not the Craig Proctor page. If there are subtle differences that are significant enough to cause acceptance of one and rejection of the other, it would be helpful if you would let me know what phrases are problematic so I can revise them. I don't believe there is anything in the Craig Proctor page write up that is promoting him - all the information is fact and I ensured I had objective, Wiki-acceptable citations for the facts. Thank you in advance for your guidance. ProducerSMS (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello K.e.coffman - Thank you for your reply. I do understand that you deleted the draft as you felt it was unambiguous advertising or promotion, but I would like to understand how the Craig Proctor draft page is any different from the published page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ferry which is a page on an individual in the same field as Craig Proctor. Why is this page authorized and not the Craig Proctor page. If there are subtle differences that are significant enough to cause acceptance of one and rejection of the other, it would be helpful if you would let me know what phrases are problematic so I can revise them. I don't believe there is anything in the Craig Proctor page write up that is promoting him - all the information is fact and I ensured I had objective, Wiki-acceptable citations for the facts. Thank you in advance for your guidance. ProducerSMS (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the message on your Talk page: User talk:ProducerSMS#Managing a conflict of interest. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wasn't understanding correctly where I needed to put this since the Draft:Craig_Proctor page was deleted. I hope I have correctly put the disclosures on my own userpage. I'm not certain I have correctly put "yes" with respect to U1-declared under the connected contributor section I put on my user page. I do know Craig Proctor, but I am not related to him or friends with him and I am not being paid in anyway to generate the page on him. Would you let me know if I've done this correctly and what next steps I should be taking toward potential publication of the Draft:Craig_Proctor page? Thank you for your time.ProducerSMS (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's usually not helpful to argue for notability of one subject based on another article, as sometimes that article isn't terribly notable either. If the subject is truely notable, then a non-involved volunteer would create an article at some point. I see that Draft:Craig Proctor was already deleted twice, as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". In addition, the subject did not strike me as notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the article I compared it to is not notable, I'm wondering how it came to be published or whether it should be published under the guidelines you've explained. The subjects and articles are quite parallel. I understand rules and guidelines must exist to safeguard the integrity of Wikipedia, but I would think those rules and guidelines should, therefore, be universally applied. Can you recommend any other next steps?ProducerSMS (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the other article is on a non-notable subject, you can nominate it for deletion. Please see here for instructions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your time and am not trying to abuse it. I understand your role and how important it is that wikipedia exercises integrity. The reason I felt Craig Proctor was notable is that as a local businessman in our community, he has impacted the lives of so many others across North America. Obviously this isn't the kind of statement that would go into a wikipedia article, but I wanted to explain why I felt he was worthy of note. By sharing the real estate business system he created for his own business, he's elevated the lives of literally thousands of others. He has a business membership of agents he mentors of thousands and many students have been with him for a decade or two because the value is ongoing. I haven't mentioned this on the draft page because that would be promotional and the proof for this would be from the people he's helped and thus not citable sources. Craig Proctor has made a notable impact on the North American real estate industry and it was this that drove me to write the entry.ProducerSMS (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Autobiography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Iyad Hajjaj

Hello K.e.Coffman, Thank you for reviewing my articles and leaving a comment on it, also thank you for the education/links you submitted, definitely, I will read it all. but I think, you took me wrong! I write about people I may know but of course, they are not my friends, family or hired me to write about them! I just work on the materials from my own side without any connections with them, I write here in a way like a Journal Press work, I call his office I ask his manager to provide me with information about him and I contact his friends or his family (I don't know them too), I check here and there to build at the end an enough references and sources to write a good article! without any real connection, maybe I met the person once or twice in general events but definitely, I am not hired by him to write an article about him. It's just a project from scratch! my interest all about to have a nice article about someone who lives in the same country and same state! I spent a long time doing this work, trying to practice journalism on Wikipedia English + Nobody wrote anything about him (Iyad Hajjaj) while I can help Wikipedia by providing some info I know about this man who won several awards in the film industry! please advise me what to do to take this article out of deletion! Thank you again for making Wikipedia a great clear accredited source.

Oshotoxx (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshotoxx: while your dedication to tracking down information on your subjects is admirable, I think you may be misunderstanding a key Wikipedia policy, which is verifiability. Coverage on Wikipedia must be based on the person's coverage in reliable sources, not your own investigations. In addition, we will not have an article on anyone who is not notable. Catrìona (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: Hi Catronia, Thank you for stopping here to help me with my article, I really appreciate your helpful tips and advice! However, I believe that I added enough reliable sources rather than my "my own investigations". I have so many reliable sources + Iyad Hajjaj he is a notable person, try to google his name and see it by yourself! I am really so open for any changes in my article to be verified by Wikipedia! advice, please. Thank you.Oshotoxx (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lidia Vianu

Hello,

In the article Draft:Lidia Vianu you declined the submission by comment: "The article is creation protected due to repeated recreation." The article was originally created (in 2010? 2005?) by the subject, then recreated by the subject's daughter, then repeatedly recreated by the subject's students, none of whom had any experience on Wikipedia, and believing that the article could be a Europass CV that does not need sources. Of course, it has been deleted many times. The few sources cited at the initial creation were very poor, but now (2018) the subject's activity is much better reflected in media. The article is much better referenced as in previous cases.

Knowing the situation of previous deletions, I asked how to proceed. According to your resolution, we will never be able to create this article because it was repeatedly deleted. What you propose that this article can be created, because the subject is a notable person, is one of James Joyce's scholars, who have pages about them. Thank you. --Turbojet (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Turbojet: I would reach out to the administrator who protected the page; you can do it on their Talk page here: User talk:ReaderofthePack. You can see a full list of administrators who interacted with the page by clicking on the red link: Lidia Vianu. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Turbojet (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ben O'Brien, Physician

Dear Mr Coffman Many thanks for your efforts curating Wikipedia content. I recently submitted content for a new entry on a colleagues of mine, who I firmly believe to merit such recognition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ben_O%27Brien,_Physician

Some years ago, someone (and I am actually not quite sure who!) created a wikipedia page on me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Montgomery_(physician)

Professor O'Brien contacted me to point out some inaccuracies on my page, which have now been corrected. I want to create an entry on Prof O'Brien which is factually accurate. I have contacted him to gain access to some source material, including a photograph, which he shared and signed the release for.

I would be very grateful for some guidance by an experienced Wikipedia curator and editor as to how I can improve the draft entry so that it might be accepted for publication.

With thanks and best wishes! H.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montgomery007 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Montgomery007: Wikipedia discourages the creation of articles on one's colleagues or friends. Please see a note on your Talk page User_talk:Montgomery007#Managing a conflict of interest. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Panzer Aces (book series)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Panzer Aces (book series) 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 Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Panzer Aces (book series)

The article Panzer Aces (book series) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Panzer Aces (book series) 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 Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially problematic sources

Are Lexikon-der-wehrmacht and ww2.dk legit and good for use? They seem OK content-wise, but I think they fail WP:SPS. ww2.dk in particular is important to me because it's used in Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II), so I used it in Jagdgeschwader 52. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC) OP (Vami) here. I started this section to ask about Lexikon-der-wehrmacht and ww2.dk but later expanded it to talk about the new title, potentially bad sources. –Vami[reply]

I would agree that they are not RS and I would fail a GA review if the nominator used them. Even if the content is accurate, that doesn't make the source reliable. I'm surprised a site like that would have information that you can't find elsewhere, for instance in German-language books. Catrìona (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV: I would not use either of these sources, being apparently user-generated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would not use either sources you mention above, either. Kierzek (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New quandary. I've come to acquire a bazillion pdfs of Gordon Williamson books (which I used at List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients, before getting all these Osprey-published books), so I did a background check. Alarms started sounding in my head when I read his bio here on en.wikipedia and them came to full crescendo once I saw the foreward to his book on the Iron Cross was written by an officer of the 1st Waffen-SS Leibstandarte. I've seen your take (and S.P. Mackenzie's, also courtesy of your userpage) in brief, but do you think he could be used if stacked with a more critical source? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for Williamson, he is not an RS source in my opinion, but others would say he is okay to use for general information, such as unit names and dates of service and awards obtained. I do not use him, myself. Osprey does publish some good RS works, such as by Steven Zaloga. But, as K.e. would say, they are a "mixed bag". Kierzek (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Ospreys vary tremendously in quality and reliability, depending on their author. Generally, I wouldn't rely on one as the most-used source for an article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But, yes, he's probably reliable for strictly factual material like dates, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anina Pinter

Thank you for reviewing my first wikipedia article submission, I understand why it was not approved based on notability concerns, but I want to point to a reference that you may not have seen which contains a 15 page article and interview with Anina Pinter.

The link I gave did not specify the exact page number, which didn’t help. Here it is again with page number: https://issuu.com/mzsk.hu/docs/szemle15_2_netre/75 Possibly also this is because the magazine I linked to, Szemle, is in Hungarian! But I think if you look at the publication, you can see that it is an independent, long running Hungarian culture and arts magazine. (Here is its list of quarterly publication by year http://www.mzsk.hu/szemle/ ) And you can see that the article is about only Pinter, with photos and interview.

In cases like this (where a costume designer has broken through to Hollywood work from another country where they are better known) it can be hard to find English language articles to show notability, but hopefully in context with other sources of information, you can see that this is a case where notability is shown in a foreign language, which I believe wikipedia’s criteria allows for.

If I correct the link in the article so that it directs you to the page of the article / Interview, would you be ready to reconsider the approval? I know the article needs more work and references, which I can continue to do. Thanks for your help. 67.201.9.50 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

67.201.9.50: it does not matter per WP:gng what language the sources are in. However, an interview does not count as a independent source. Catrìona (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Catrìona - I described it as an Article/Interview, but it is better described as an article where the writer has interviewed the subject and quotes her over some of the pages. Other pages are about her background, her move to Hollywood, etc. So, am i correct in thinking that if the source is third-party, secondary source but with quotations of the primary source, then it is an independent source because it has no vested interest in the subject? 67.201.9.50 (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
67.201.9.50: Well, I cannot read Hungarian, but if the piece includes multiple paragraphs/pages of coverage focusing on the subject written by the journalist than it does count as significant coverage in an independent publication for Wikipedia purposes. Good luck with the article! Catrìona (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Based on Catrìona's appraisal above, would you be willing to take another look at notability, based on the article, if I can update with the exact page of the article? Or do we need a Hungarian reader? Thanks 67.201.9.50 (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can improve the article and then resubmit. Please also see User_talk:67.201.9.50#Managing a conflict of interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree it needs general other improvements as well.. I will attempt some but.. I was hoping to start the page and then let others who know more or have non-hungarian links contribute the rest. I don't know that much about Anina other than I grew up in her home town and saw her at the oscars this year. No wikipedia page so I wanted to try creating a page, but understand conflicts of interest are probably rife 67.201.9.50 (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: I was hoping to start the page and then let others who know more (...) contribute the rest, it usually does not happen this way. If notability is not shown in the article, it's likely to not be approved or could be possibly deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your oversight and input... Well, on analysis it seems that many if not most WP pages are originally created with less information than they eventually have, once other sources have contributed. But with regards to the importance of demonstrating notability, that is why I included from my very first submission a reference to a 15 page article that is just about the person in question. It would seem that the referred article was not considered before this WP page submission was declined, probably because it is not in the English language! While that is a relatively slim amount of information to start an article with, are you saying that the article I linked to, in concert with the other links that show this person has contributed to several notable films, is not enough to confer notability? As I am learning, I am ready to be corrected, but from WP's guide on notability for people, it seems that if one can combine an in-depth article such as that in Szemle with the various less substantial references that establish the films this person has worked on, notability can be seen as having been shown. I would love to find more sources of information to create a more useful and well-referenced article, however, so I am reaching out to those who may be able to help. 67.201.9.50 (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the article has been sufficiently improved, you can resubmit it for review. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did find a couple more references and biog information, added page numbers for the key article about subject... nb, for following references in Hungarian, names are often written back to front rather than forename, surname..! I've also added article requests for two relevant items, the Nat Geo series Year Million and Field Guide to Evil. 67.201.9.50 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:HBUS

Greetings K.e.coffman, I have been editing cryptocurrency exchanges' info to add the NY Attorney General report on virtual markets and also get more practice being a Wiki editor. I noticed that the HBUS page was rejected and not public. I have significantly altered the content by removing promotional information, adding the Attorney General Report that notes HBUS, and also references a major publication (Forbes). If you have additional information on how to improve the article, I would appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seedan (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seedan: The article appears to only exist to promote the business in question. Beyond that, the company is not yet notable: the sources are in passing, routine notices and / or self-promotional, such as Forbes.com/sites/. Also, if you have a conflict-of-interest in re: this subject, please declare it on your user page. Please see the message on your Talk page: User talk:Seedan#Managing a conflict of interest.
You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with a better wording?

For the heaven/hell etc. hook? I proposed an alt at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Concern_about_a_8_November_hook but the discussion got derailed. I'd like to get it on track and discuss what hook would be seen as properly neutral for the article. Can you help? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I don't think the timing is right, as I see that there's an RM going on for the page, as well as some neutrality concerns posted on the Talk page. It may be better to let things settle first. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of youru for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Coretheapple submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

It is my great pleasure to nominate K.e.coffman to be Editor of the Week for his superlative contributions to military history. Offhand I can't think of an editor who has had a more significant impact on the project's content. He has worked tirelessly to remove neo-Nazi apologia from the project in multiple articles and is the editor most largely responsible for tackling the Clean Wehrmacht myth to the extent that it has impacted on articles. Note this essay in which he cogently outlined the problem and how to deal with it. The only thing that held me back from nominating him earlier was an arbitration proceeding involving these issues that was recently concluded.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 00:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly deserved. Well done K.e! Simon Adler (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • K.e., I hope you're aware of the special rule applying to those who are designated editor of the week during the ArbCom elections? They have to offer themselves as candidates in the election. You'd better get cracking with your stump speech (=candidate statement) and be ready to submit it here before 23:59 UTC on 13 November 2018. Bishonen | talk 01:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Draft:Chuck Easttom

I found the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chuck_Easttom and your comments. I tried to do some cleanup. I think this person is at least minimally notable. I found (and added citations) that his is a) a Distinguished Speaker of the ACM, and according to Wikipedia, there are only 125 of those, that would seem to be notable enough. However, I also added dozens of citations from CNN, CBS, various universities, major conferences, etc. Not to mention, when I searched Wikipedia for the subject I found 8 articles referencing him. In my opinion that is adequate notability. However, I have put in all the time I can on this one, and hope others will take it from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.211.175.29 (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This still reads like a promotional autobiography. Please review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is not an autobio to start with, check my IP address, I am in Saudi Arabia. I am not the subject. And I did not start the article. I just found it. It happens I used this subjects textbook in a graduate school class and was searching for the author and found the draft page and decided to pitch in. And it reads like a factual overview of an academic. For a model I used other Wiki articles on academics such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stallings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Aaronson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dourish


Like those, this article lists the subjects accomplishments in neutral language. The primary differences this article has no biographical background (where the subject was born, etc.) because I don't know it and cannot find a source. The wording is almost identical to other Wikipedia academic biographies.

Feedback

Hi, I'm on the fence about a draft. Draft:Ben_Bloom_(Journalist). While he seems notable, I fear that there is too much negativty in the article to accept. Do you think I should accept anyway and leave the stuff in the draft per WP:NOTCENSORED ?? Or decline and ask the author to make it more neutral?? Thanks JC7V-talk 19:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JC7V7DC5768: I would decline due to insufficient notability. The controversies are minor, while there's not enough depth of sources to write an NPOV biography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask a favor?

Can you watchlist Naliboki massacre and Koniuchy massacre, which are periodically hit by a POV pusher trying to source information to sources that don't support the information plus trying to push a narrative that is verging on anti-semitic? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Will do. I've also requested ECP for both articles here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Naliboki massacre. Please feel free to chime in there. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Heart to Heart Counseling Center

Can you please re-review my article on Heart to Heart Counseling Center? I was basing the information off of the content which was listed on their company website. I have since removed all of the "promotional" content (pretty much everything about their products and services) and left only the history of the counseling center and Doug Weiss. I feel like this article is necessary to the completion of Wikipedia because Doug Weiss already has a wiki page, so this page would complete his bio about where he works. Please let me know, and thank you for your time K.e.coffman. JoIIygreen (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JoIIygreen: Sorry, I do not plan to re-review this draft, as I don't consider the topic to be suitable for inclusion due to promotionalism and lack of notability. Please also see:
--K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jon Michael Varese

Thank you for the review K.e.coffman. I've followed your suggestions and:

  • Removed all "peacock" text from the article submission
  • Added "Critical Reception" section from The Spirit Photographer article to the main article
  • Disclosed COI on my User page. (I am the subject's third cousin.)

Please let me know if there is anything else you need me to do. Thanks, Alexander Moviemaker325 (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really...

I always admired how you cut through bull-stuff in some contexts (re: your inspiring c/e of various Nazi-whitewashing, etc.). Which is why I am surprised we seem to disagree on the 'Jewish Paradise' issue. The 1606 poem was undeniably xenophoic (including being antisemitic). But the poem is fringe, it is forgotten, and all that remains is the proverb (and its shorter 'Jewish Paradise') section. I've cited plenty of sources, and the use of either is generally neutral, as in, non-malicious and referring to the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. Of course, we can find some instances of those terms being abused by antisemites, but 1) I cannot find any academic source discussing the use of those constructs by antisemites, so all we have are some primary refs to hate speech and 2) those constructs are reasonably often used by academics, who clearly use them in a neutral way (if not, in fact, a way that's positive towards the Jews, as in, referring to their Golden Age). There's the bit about the saying being an exaggeration/hyperbole, which the article notes as well, but I'd really appreciated it if you tell me what I am missing here? I explained this issue on talk in more detail, but IMHO the vast majority of reliable (academic) sources uses the proverb/two word construct neutrally. How such a construct can be considered antisemitic? (Again, I am sure it is abused in some hate speech, but so can be everything else, and hate speech is not a reliable source, not until it is analyzed by academics). A single minor scholar is grinding an ax because she has issues with a POLIN Museum and criticized the title of their exhibition; no other scholar seems to support her claim about those constructs (through some, rightly, agree re the original 1606 poem, as do I, and as the article clearly states). Seriously, one of the world's largest museums of Jewish history wouldn't use an anti-semitic phrase, without any explanation, on its pages/exhibitions: [1]. And it's not like POLIN is not aware of Janicka's criticism (or criticisms, she effectivelly called it an antisemitic museum, she really has an issue with that institution...); they have generated a few more academic papers, replies from POLIN director/staff, which essentially boils down to 'criticism of this phrase is incorrect and out of context', which is why the museum has retained this phrase, and nobody else has repeated this criticism (Polin won a prestigious Europen-wide museum award, the European Museum of the Year Award, since: [2]). Ditto for media, no media, Polish or international, have deemed this criticism to be justified. Just recently a Jewish-American newspaper ([3]) run a nice report on the museum, and guess what? They even explicitly refer to the Jewish Paradise construct in a positive way: "The 'Paradisus Iudaeorum' gallery, part of the core exhibition at Warsaw's POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, examines a 'golden age' for Jews in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th and 17th centuries." in the image caption, and they don't even bother to mention any criticism of that phrase. So, are you going to say that the AJP is using anti-semitic language now? PS. BBC used it a way back: [4], so did the Jewish Telegraphic Agency ([5]). Hardly anti-semitic venues (if it was really an anti-semitic slur, you'd think someone would point it out to them and they'd revise their articles...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Paradise for the Jews" @ DYK

@Piotrus: You have asked for my opinion; I responded on my Talk page as well as at DYK. It's apparently not what you expected to hear, so let me be more direct in how I convey this. Accusations of "ranting" [6] in response to good-faith concerns are not appropriate. Likewise, continued advocacy [7] with the aim of getting an antisemitic-sounding saying onto the mainpage comes across as off. Other editors said as much, i.e. here: [8].

Re: your comment that "the academic debate about this topic, as well as whether this phrase is anti-semitic, or much more nuanced, is ongoing, and any attempt to simply it is not helpful" [9]. I agree with this point, but it also underlies the issue with the hook. The available word count does not offer sufficient space for nuance, which the topic requires. It also seems that the positive connotations apply to the two-word phrase. Attempts to "simplify" the article into a hook & use the entire saying evince responses such as: "Who the hell is responsible for this potential P.R. clusterfuck?". It would not be a good look for Wikipedia if more people come away with this impression.

Perhaps you are simply too invested in the article to be able to hear the feedback you are getting. That said, I grant that there's a chance that I'm wrong in how I perceived the hook. A discussion at NPOVN may be benefitial to get wider perspectives. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OurPath

Hi there -

I'd like to either contest the deletion of Draft:OurPath or retrieve the deleted material.

Thank you! Sdfish78 (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sdfish78 Your draft was speedily deleted for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". This means that the deleting administrator thought that the material had no potential to become a Wikipedia article. Your best bet is to confirm that the subject is notable and write an article that is neutral. However, if you would like to contest the deletion, Deletion review is the correct forum. Catrìona (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - is it possible to retrieve the deleted material in the first instance? Sdfish78 (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdfish78: The only way to do that is through deletion review; you would have to show that the deletion of the article under the speedy criteria was not appropriate. Catrìona (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - thank you. I have submitted a deletion review :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdfish78 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.e.coffman&oldid=868725361"