User talk:K.e.coffman

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 12 sections are present.

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Gun use

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Gun use. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. –dlthewave ☎ 21:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: This has been quite interesting: Wikipedia_talk:Gun_use. The link at the top goes from red to blue and back again on a daily basis it seems. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There are now five copies of it on my watchlist including one in my userspace, which is odd because I don't recall writing it. –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doenitz and Raeder's pro-Nazi orders

I first read the articles on Karl Dönitz and Erich Raeder back in 2013, when I first got into Wikipedia. I recall that the articles included orders by one and/or the other issued to the U-boat force advocating Nazi discipline. I can't seem to find those entries now. As you know, the U-boat force has one of the "least Nazi" reputations of the German WWII forces, as does Doenitz, who of course was designated by Hitler as his heir. If these orders can be properly sourced, exposing his loyalty to the regime he served so well would be useful. As for aircraft kills, my recollection from years ago is that all three of the "300 club" scored more than half of their kills against unarmed Soviet transport planes, and Marseille was perhaps the only 100+ pilot with most of his kills against the UK and US. I have not looked up these "facts" in 40+ years, so I could be wrong. RobDuch (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RobDuch: I believe that the Raeder article was split at some point, with the WWII content being largely moved to Erich Raeder during World War II. This does not make much sense to me, as Raeder is perhaps best known for WWII. I believe the order you've mentioned in that spin-out article. Should the WWII content be perhaps merged back?

"Aces"

You're correct about Marseille, but wrong about the others. The Germans rarely encountered Soviet transports, so virtually all of the kills by the Germans on the Eastern Front were of armed aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: According to ace (military), to be considered an "ace" one had to achieve success over an equally skilled opponent. For fighter pilots, shooting down bombers or ground attack aircraft? Not so impressive. I always chuckle when I see statements such as "All but one of his victories were claimed over the Eastern Front, including 16 Il-2 Sturmoviks. Sturmovik was a ground-attack aircraft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even the crappiest aircraft were armed. Heck, the Night Witches usually had an anti-aircraft gun, and those were Po-2 wooden biplanes. (BTW, some Soviet aircraft were so crappy (for combat purposes because they were originally civilian planes) that they were actually very hard to shoot down. The Po-2 was a crop duster not intended for combat but crop dusting, to the point is was so slow German pilots found them nearly impossible to shoot down because they would stall while trying to line up shoot it down. Hence why the one pilot that shot down four night witch planes in one night was objectively notable, because members of the regiment's remembered it for years as the night the regiment was grounded. (And the incident has been written about in Russian a lot because it was a statistical anomaly) Point being, mass deletion is not a good idea and its better to improve/rewrite than delete in mass before fully reading the English and Russian versions. Ace may not just mean aircraft equivalent, but depends on how hard each type of plane was to shoot down. For example, in the pacific war, shooting down 5 wildcats would not be very impressive, but shooting down 5 hellcats? Very different. I could provide more examples if you would like, I might even dig up a photo of a Po-2 with an anti-aircraft gun mounted.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that an ace had to shoot down an equally skilled opponent and I've read a lot of ace biographies over the years, although I've never gotten into the WWI aces. I'd definitely want to see the cite for that. A kill was a kill as far as they were concerned; didn't matter if it was an unarmed C-47 over Arnhem or a Typhoon V fighter over Normandy. Don't knock the Il-2, it was probably the most heavily armored aircraft of the war and was very difficult to shoot down until the Germans figured out its vulnerabilities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Please explain these edits; 1 & 2. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 04:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: sure, per the discussion here, you were advised "not to impede the formation of consensus by being too bold with talk page actions (specifically, they should not take it upon themselves to maintain or "clerk" any discussions)".

With that in mind, please explain these edits: [1]; [2]; [3]. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see how those edits were in any way "impeding the formation of consensus". As for the AE warning, I don't see where it says I can't participate at all, nor do I see where it appointed you as some type of admin assistant tasked with monitoring my posts and 'clerking' any discussions I take part in, which is exactly what you have done in both instances here. You still haven't explained those specific edits, and simply saying "go read the AE close" is not sufficient. - ^theWOLFchild 16:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Most of us have come across comments that are a bit too snarky or personal, especially in heated discussions. Editors will often guide the conversation back to the topic at hand by responding only to content that is related to improving the article. This may be sufficient to defuse the situation. We might let a minor offenses slide, or bring it to the user's talk page if it needs to be addressed. Sometimes a noticeboard post is necessary for persistent offenders. In any case, personal comments and editor behavior should never be discussed on an article talk page, even if someone else brought it up first.

Your approach is the opposite: You tend to escalate the personal discussion, often drawing the conversation away from the topic at hand. This leads other editors to spend time and energy addressing your remarks instead of working toward consensus. I hope you can see how this disrupts the editing process and why it was brought to AE. I would suggest that you avoid addressing or responding to personal comments on article talk pages, and I would give any editor the same advice. By the way, thanks for bringing your concerns to K.e.coffman's talk page. This is the appropriate place for the discussion to take place. –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Your approach is the opposite"... and I am genuinely shocked, shocked!, mind you, that you would think that, but the two examples cited here say different. The "focus on content and not on editors" mantra is one that you and your friend K.e. here should pay more attention to. - ^theWOLFchild 18:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Sure, I'd be happy to explain further. Deciding what is and what isn't a personal attack and then using this judgement to modify other editors' posts sounds like 'clerking' to me. I don't see where you were appointed as some sort of a junior admin tasked with monitoring other editors' posts and redacting them, repeatedly.

If you have a problem with specific posts, please discuss with the editor directly, on their user Talk page. Turning the articles' Talk page into a venue to discuss editors not content is not what these pages are for. This derails discussions and is unnecessary. Just state your position on the issue and leave any 'clerking' and redactions to others. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Others"...? Like you? If only you could follow the advice you so freely dispense. And parakeeting my own post back to me doesn't explain anything, it only proves this to be a waste of time. As it stands right now, I have no editing restrictions and you are in no position to impose any on me, like some probational-acting-deputy-admin-in-training, and not while you are and your friend Dl here are doing the same very same things that you keep complaining about. So again I'll say, focus on content, not other editors... surely you can do that? - ^theWOLFchild 01:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: you've come here to request an explanation for my edits, which I provided, twice. Isn't this what you wanted? Here it is, again: "Deciding what is and what isn't a personal attack and then using this judgement to modify other editors' posts sounds like 'clerking' to me."

I've not "imposed" any "editing restrictions" on you; I'm not "complaining", etc. That said, I've requested an explanation for your edits, which you are yet to provide. Stating how shocked, shocked! you are is not sufficient. Please explain these edits: [4]; [5]; [6]. Surely you can do that? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, "sounds like clerking to me" is the only explanation you are going to provide. Got it. Like I said, trying to discuss this was a waste of time. Meanwhile, you're asking me to explain three edits (though the first two are the same) and the third is itself the explanation. So, are you really having that much difficty understanding them? Or is this just more gaslighting? Actually, strike that. No more questions, I think we're done here (at least, I am. This is your talk page, so feel free to have the last word). - ^theWOLFchild 17:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: You have a funny way of striking your questions. Comments are usually stricken by making another edit to strike through them, not writing both your questions and "Strike that. No more questions" out in one edit: [7]. An even more efficient way of striking one's comments is to take them out before hitting "save". But I guess you really wanted to ask those questions, didn't you? Separately, why did you believe that "Not this again. That's not much of an argument. Not all of us have sat here spending our lives reading old arguments" is a personal attack? To the point of edit-warring over it?

But strike that; no more questions. [See - others can do it too.] I do appreciate you letting me have the last word. And you are welcome to post here any time. BTW, you might consider implementing the same practice on your Talk page, instead of routinely removing other editors' comments or, even more bizarrely, moving them to the article's Talk pages, so that you could continue to have your emotional outbursts there. That's what led in part to the AE. So the fact that we were having this discussion here is progress, I guess. Have a nice day. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Help

Hello K.e.coffman, I began with care to write some lines concerning the history of the centre of this article in Gun_laws_in_Australia#Evolution_of_Gun_laws_in_Australia, because I found a 100% fitting source. Could you help and have a look? In my opinion there is too much (not law concerned) overhead in this article grown by editing over the years. In this case to be found in the first two sections of Gun_laws_in_Australia#History. Please have a look if my grammar is correct and eliminate some overhead. Will you be so kind and help in this case? Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP-Tracker

Hello K.e.coffman, coincidentally I saw your User:K.e.coffman/IP Tracker and that there was a problematic IP from British Columbia. There are more IPs from the same area which have been identified with disruptive edits (especially one IP since 2011). May I draw your attention to User_talk:NeilN#Good_&_bad_news_...? Sorrowfully up to now I could not see whether these findings could be used so far. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ｔｏｍ: I don't think that these are at all related. Note that the BC address was blocked as part of a mass block and it was a while ago. The topic area is also completely different. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok thanks for your estimation. Do you think there is something to do about the Nanaimo & Victoria IPs ? --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know.

Someone undid your creation of the redirect Rudolf von Ribbentrop and made it a full blown article again. I restored the redirect, but largely as a result of your conclusion that he was not notable. Just making sure your judgement still stands. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: thank you. Yes, this does come up occasionally. If such articles are nominated for deletion, they mostly end up being deleted / redirected, e.g.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnulf Abele. If the Ribbentrop page is restored again, I will probably AfD it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Cowdery

Could you take a look at this. I've just PRODed it, but I'd be guided by your feedback. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I think it was a correct PROD. An obscure author whose works on Nazi Germany are not used as sources on either en.wiki or de.wiki. No reviews, etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PROD was removed by creator without addressing the issues and a rather odd es. Sent to AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Erich Hoepner

The article Erich Hoepner you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Erich Hoepner 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 Euryalus -- Euryalus (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Hoepner and the current Arbcom case request

Hi. Your Arbcom case request includes references to the article on Erich Hoepner, as an example of the alleged issue. As you know I recently did a GA review on that article, in my capacity as a random member of Milhist. Am also in a position to vote on the case request in my capacity as a random member of Arbcom.

I haven't (yet) recused from the case because I don't see this piece of fairly minor content analysis as impinging on the likelihood of a fair hearing. But am keen to get your views either way, as a principal participant in the request as it stands. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: thank you for checking. I don't have any issues with your participation. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Wehrmacht tall tale

Inspired by the Arbcom case. See, I thought that Clean Wehrmacht was a concept about war crimes and complicity in crimes against humanity, without including military incompetence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay

Only just noticed it so I added a comment on the Bugle talk page. I was surprised at what you have found, even though it's been discussed on the MilHist page often enough. In my furrow obsolete texts aren't as ideologically questionable, just bad scholarship or the obsolete stuff of commercial history (the Schlieffen Plan comes to mind) endlessly repackaged like the Hitler channel. It seems to me that Wiki rules contain a conservative corollary which makes truth a matter of quantity of sources, rather than quality. Is there a nationality correlation with the sources (authors and editors) used to whitewash the Hitler regime? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of Donald Trump

I am going to ask you self-revert this before an AE is filed for breaking consensus required. PackMecEng (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PackMecEng: Thank you for attempting to resolve this dispute here. I do, however, see rough consensus for inclusion. According to my review of the TP discussion, here's the breakdown:

Yes: SPECIFICO Drmies Volunteer Marek BullRangifer K.e.coffman Neutrality (6)

No: PackMecEng Politrukki Atsme Orser67 (4)

Aquillion's position was a bit unclear, but I think it was leaning yes. So far, no one else has expressed concerns. If you still have objections, I can raise the issue on the article's Talk page and ping everyone — especially Aquillion, to clarify his position. If I miscounted or misinterpreted anything, please let me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Markbassett for oppose. So that would be 6 to 5, but even if it was 6 to 4 that is not enough for consenses. So one last time, I ask you self-revert. PackMecEng (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History

Just read your Signpost article, excellent and important work. I've come across issues like this over the years in historiography topics. For a while there were editors scrubbing the early medieval articles of "Barbarian" replacing with "Germans". Or the Turkish nationalists who were adamant they were the direct genetic heirs of the Huns (historians actually believe the Huns were a brand name, like a football team, not a racial tribal division). Or those who believe the Dark Ages (historiography) were actually dark (there were some problems in the period but it was mostly a later invention by Italian Humanists to restore the glory of the Roman Empire). Wikipedia needs more historiography-focused articles (like Dark Ages (historiography)) so these issues can be stated clearly. But it's a specialized field to be sure, and they tend to be honey traps for those who disagree. -- GreenC 02:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#K.e.coffman

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#K.e.coffman. PackMecEng (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]