User talk:K.e.coffman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Max Valentiner[edit]

I reverted a 2008 IP edit which replaced "branded a war criminal" with "listed as a war criminal" at Max Valentiner. List of most successful U-boat commanders had similar language which I also reverted. –dlthewave 20:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: Thank you; a good one! I added this example to the showcase, in the User:K.e.coffman#Investigative Sub-committee on Abuses of Victor's Justice section. If you come across any others, please let me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
It's a rabbithole: [1] [2] [3]. There seems to be a legend of "honorable" "Aces of the Deep" who allowed crews to evacuate to lifeboats and gave directions to the nearest port before destroying the vessel. –dlthewave 05:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
See also badassoftheweek.com which was used as a source. –dlthewave 05:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: "badassoftheweek.com" is pretty good! K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting omission from the Adolf Galland article[edit]

Apparently he was the only person that the Americans blocked from joining the Bundeswehr because of Neo-Nazi sympathies.[4] Catrìona (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: I tried to raise a similar issue here: Talk:Adolf Galland#Tags, but I was not successful, due to the intervention of two MILHIST coordinators who deemed the sources to be reliable and appropriate. You are welcome to open another discussion; sometimes people need to hear the same thing twice. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Coloured pictures[edit]

See this discussion: (in Dutch): nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg#Historische foto's: zwart-wit of ingekleurd The Banner talk 18:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Banner: Thank you for letting me know; I commented on the thread. FYI, there's a somewhat related discussion on de.wiki: Colorierung historischer NS-Bilder vom Bundesarchiv auf Commons; (permalink). --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't read the Dutch (or German) but if you need help with this abomination on English wikipedia, let me know. I'm not one to see Nazis under every bit of furniture, but even I think someone with that user name doing only colorizations of nazi images is a bit of a red flag! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: I compiled the cliff notes from the three discussions, on English, Dutch and German Wikipedias:
English Wikipedia does not seem to be an issue, along with the other two wikis. It was the reaction on Commons that I found surprising, along with people following me to other wikis to reintroduce the fakes into articles. The links to the Commons discussions are included in the "See also" section. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

SS as "4th branch of the Wehrmacht"[edit]

Hey, saw this, and while it is incorrect to say the SS was a 4th Wehrmacht branch (though to be fair, SS units were under Wehrmacht operational control - often) - as the "regime logic" (similar to some modern Republican Guards or Revolutionay Guards) was that these were a counterforce to the regular army... However, was not the Waffen SS effectively the 4th armed service of Nazi Germany? Icewhiz (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What I can tell you is that the WP:RS sources state there is an argument that can be made that the Waffen-SS was a de facto fourth branch, however, it must be remembered that it was never a "serious rival" to the German Army. It never obtained complete "independence of command" (which adds to the criminality of the Wehrmacht); its members were never allowed to be part of, nor promoted to the OKW. It also was under 10% in manpower numbers of the Wehrmacht, even at its peak. Further, it was still, in large part, dependent on the army for heavy weaponry and equipment. Stein, especially cautions the use of (overemphasizing) that fourth branch argument; this because of its use by apologists to support their arguments they were "soldiers like the army". Ironically, when it comes to the German Army, they certainly did not have clean hands, either. Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: As Kierzek points out, it's an apologist narrative put forth by the Waffen-SS propaganda from the likes of HIAG. While on the front lines, Waffen-SS divisions were controlled by the OKW, but while resting and refitting they were subordinated to Kommandostab Reichsführer-SS. SS police & Waffen-SS took the lead on security warfare operations under the 1942 Bandenbekämpfung directive, with Wehrmacht playing a subordinate role.
It appears that this narrative has been partially successful, since you are asking these questions. E.g. the exhalted prose and remarkable juxterpositions I encountered in articles on Waffen-SS units, such as: "...the activities of partisan groups increased all across the area. LSSAH men murdered 49 Jewish refugees..." (User:K.e.coffman#"Ah, partisanen!").
After the successful completion of the military campaign, Himmler envisioned Waffen-SS as the permanent police/military force, if I recall Bernd Wegner's argument correctly. If anything, the Wehrmacht could be viewed as becoming the "combart arm" of the SS as the war progressed, not the other way around. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The (possibly wrong) picture in my mind (based on reading as well as analogs to other regimes) is that the Waffen-SS was a more fanatic&loyal version of the wehrmacht (which itself was dirty and fanatic). People such as Otto Skorzeny (who joined the SS after being rejected for pilot training) or Michael Wittmann were, more or less, full time military. I am not coming at this from viewing the waffen-SS as "clean" - but rather viewing it is a "dirtier" element of the rather "dirty" Nazi military forces.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, re: Michael Wittmann [was] full time military... -- well, let's see. According to his wiki page, Wittmann volunteered for the SS in 1936. The article then, rather euphemistically, discusses that he "participated in the annexation of Austria and the occupation of Sudetenland". I'm pretty sure he was not just "soldiering". He was then on the Eastern Front, where Leibstandarte was notorious for killing POWs outright and participating in massacres. Even compared to the Wehrmacht, which was thoroughly Nazified, Waffen-SS stands out.
The "fourth branch of the Wehrmacht" narrative was strategic because the former Waffen-SS men wanted to attach themselves to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. It survived in Germany until 1990, until the Wehrmacht Exhibition -- in the popular perception of the war, not in academic circles. The myth is still pretty much in operation in the Anglo-American popular culture, as much of my user page demonstrates. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Most articles i want to add information to appear to involve you[edit]

Hello, You might remember me from last year when i first got into wikipedia. After a certain family incident i'm now back to contribute to wikipedia. Now i made a list of articles i either want to add additional information or pictures/documents to to make the article more informative and of course objective. One thing i noticed is that in most of those articles talk pages you seem to be active on, and in most of them it seems like there are problems between you and another contributor. The most recent one i just came across while checking personalities i can add a lot of information or pictures to is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G%C3%BCnther_Freiherr_von_Maltzahn Now i want to make wikipedia a more neutral place that on one hand contains all of the facts but at the same time also stays away from bias. You and me both can accept that we have a natural bias. As you are of jewish heritage and maybe even have victims of WW2 war crimes among your family while i'm of german heritage and have family that were heavily involved in the 3rd Reich (which is why i have a lot to contribute while leaving out the personal items because of their bias.) I'd like to have a personal talk with you via e-mail or something similar before i add/edit articles you have been involved in. That way you and me both save time and both can work on creating more neutral but always factual wikipedia articles. Is there an e-mail adress or another way to contact you in private? I'd appreciate it if you'd share it so i can inform you about all of the wikipedia articles you've been involved in that i want to add information to.

Kind regards and thanks in advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@ChartreuxCat: I prefer to communicate on Wiki. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Hello, that's no problem for me either, as i said i'm also still new here and didn't find a private message system and since i prepared several additions and changes to articles on the topic you have also worked on, i didn't want the both of us to end up filling your Talk page. That said, of course we can also discuss the changes and additions of reliable sources on each topic in the talk section of the topic itself. Also maybe you can help me with one question, some of the sources i'll use are from the german-language only "Institut für Zeitgeschichte (IfZ)" i'm sure you're aware of as well as some other reliable sources that only exist in german. I'm aware that i can use them on english wikipedia but do i have to add a translation for the source in the talk section so non-german-speaking wikipedia editors know what the source says? Obviously i want you and maybe others to check out the german-language sources i will use before i add or change the article to avoid problems. How should i proceed when using german-only sources? Thanks in advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) It's expected that Wikipedia editors will use offline, paywalled, or non-English sources that cannot be easily checked. There is no requirement to provide a translation, but it is good practice to translate and/or post quotes supporting disputed or controversial claims (whilst avoiding the posting of excessive copyrighted text on Wikipedia). See WP:NOENG. Catrìona (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) See above. If you have links to your materials, I would appreciate it if you added them to the WikiProject Germany Library. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Felix Römer[edit]

Hello:

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

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

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: thank you. I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Ernst Klink[edit]

Hello:

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

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

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: much appreciated! --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Johann Rattenhuber and the RSD[edit]

K.e. - I remember reading sometime ago about Rattenhuber being in charge of security during the build out of Wolf's Lair and how foreign workers on the site were shot in the name of "security". I looked in my library this past weekend, but cannot find the RS book where I read that now. I wanted to add some RS citing for it. If you have or come across anything in relation to the above, let me know. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kierzek: I found some information in Smersh: Stalin's Secret Weapon, by Vadim Birstein. The book does not list the number of victims, but otherwise confirms RSD's role in the events: [5]. Hope this helps. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi K.e.coffman. After reviewing your request at the Afc desk, I have additionally enabled rollback on your account. Happy editing! Lourdes 06:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Congrats! Strike the earth! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's a big deal really. WP:TWINKLE already gives you the "Rollback (Vandal)" option, so it's not much of change. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vami IV: --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh. See, I'm not so much an admin as I am a cave dragon and have no knowledge of these things. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vami IV: Anybody can use Twinkle. It's useful for semi-automated edits, such as nominating articles for deletion; welcoming new users; etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
True, the official "Rollback" is a obtained right; and a fast and easy, through a one clink step, to deal with vandalism. Kierzek (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ernst Klink[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ernst Klink you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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) 08:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Felix Römer[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Felix Römer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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) 08:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ernst Klink[edit]

The article Ernst Klink you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Ernst Klink 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) 01:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Felix Römer[edit]

The article Felix Römer you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Felix Römer 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) 01:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: Thank you for the reviews. Much appreciated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Bandenbekämpfung[edit]

Hope you are well. Since I had a free couple of hours, I worked on the Bandenbekämpfung page you created. In the process, I deleted a couple things that were not substantiated or not a proper reflection of the original (added by other editors I am sure). Not that I did a lot, but it's enough that a good copy-edit, content review, is in order as I was working very quickly. As you know, my substantial library can be used to great effect in strengthening this page--if I had but more time. Maybe over the holidays or if I get a free moment here or there. Servus --Obenritter (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Obenritter: thank you for expanding the article. I actually own Blood's Hitler's Bandit Hunters that you used, and I've been thinking of working on the article since forever. However, I find the book to be a difficult read, both because of the author's writing style and the subject matter. (I've found Westermann's Hitler's Police Battalions to be correspondingly blood-curling in places.) But I'll see if I can get back to it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
No worries brother. I know you are busy fighting Nazi mythologizing all over Wikipedia, which is an honorable task. Yeah Blood's prose is not the easiest to get through, but the book is very informative. I haven't picked up Westerman's work, but based on what I've heard about it I should. Keep up the good fight.--Obenritter (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Obenritter: Yes, Westermann is a good resource. The book has a detailed discussion of the activities of the police battalions in 1941-42 in the Soviet Union, along with 1939-1940 in Poland. There are also chapters on the pre-war history of the Ornungspolizei, to explain the development of its doctrine and organisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Case made. I'll be ordering a copy.--Obenritter (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsidi (talkcontribs)

Permalinks:
--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wolfram Wette[edit]

I copyedited it, but it's my first GOCE copyedit, so if you'd like another editor to look at it, feel free to leave it up on the Req page. Catrìona (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks good. I made a pass at it, just now and only did some minor ce. Although I have been a member of the GOCE for a long time, I generally just do copy edit work where I see a need or upon request. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona and Kierzek: thank you both. Catrìona, please feel free to mark as "done" in the GOCE queue; I was mostly looking for another set of eyes. This works for me! --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Request on 17:43:52, 17 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Ourielw[edit]


Hi There,

Thanks for your review.

I got your message about the rejection of my page "monday (software)". You wrote "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia" I invested a lot of time to make this page as neutral as possible, including 37 (neutral) references, so I was wondering what else I should do in order to allow the page to be published. Yes, this article is about a commercial company and product, but so are lots of others articles, including companies similar to monday. I actually tried to keep a similar structure and type of content like those pages for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asana_(software), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airtable

I'd really like to have your assistance on how to make it even more neutral to allow it go live.

Thank you for your help! Ourie

l

Ourielw (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Ourielw: the article uses non-neutral language, which makes it read like an advertisement / sales brochure. Let's take the lead for example:
... is a team management platform designed to help teams collaborate and build transparency in the workplace.re: "transparency" -- what does this mean exactly? this is not an NGO. The SaaS tool is used by a varied customer base,this is wp:peacock; avoid including startups to Fortune 500 companies, such as Carlsberg Group, Frost & Sullivan, McDonald's, WeWork, and Wix.com.name dropping monday.com can be used by any team peacock working together, from two freelancers collaborating on a project to thousands collaborating across the globe.sales brochure The non-tech segment of monday.com’s user base now consists of more than 70% of their paying accounts.bragging; probably originating from the company itself.
Re: content: generally, reviews help -- what are the product's strengths? what are its weaknesses? Instead of: the company raised an A round; then it raised a B round; then a C round. Here are all of their investors, including their names and here's how much they each invested. Etc. This reads like an investment prospectus. Hope this helps. Lastly, do you happen to be affiliated with the company in any way? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Wilhelm Krüger[edit]

Notice

The article Wilhelm Krüger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It appears that this is a fake article, because that person never existed : he was confused with Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger at the time of his creation. It has just been deleted from French Wikipedia where it had been copied from English Wikipedia. Please see that discussion page : [6]. Best regards. Gkml

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gkml (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gkml: Thank you for letting me know. I agree with the proposed deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)