User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2017/May

Archives

Walter Riedel

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

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

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

Tendentious editing

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

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

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

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

It's only uncivil if it's not supported by the evidence, and one needs look no further than your user page to see you're here to push an agenda.

You know what is uncivil? Making false accusations of doxing when nothing even remotely approaching it has occurred. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WW2 bias work

Appreciate your WW2 work. I'm wondering, what's your background? Are you a historian?

You may be amused at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Little_Saturn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uranus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings "Operation Neptune"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crete "Operation Mercury"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Jupiter

Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas: Do you mean that they are all named after the planets of the solar system? They had to named them somehow... The Germans were not that creative either, what's with Fall Rot, Fall Weiss, Fall Blau, etc. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol Ethanbas ^(talk) 19:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas: No, I'm not a historian. Why did you ask? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what draws Wikipedians to Wikipedia :) Ethanbas ^(talk) 00:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe you can work on User:Ethanbas/Women in Bletchley Park for me? :P I'm kidding Ethanbas ^(talk) 00:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about Nazi Germany

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

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

I don't believe that is a good idea; the list is one of recommended books and the section could run into WP:OR problems. Kierzek (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman:@Kierzek: Well -- I was OK with it at first, but then I got to thinking about all the Neo-Nazi skinheads who might turn an honorable page about academic works dedicated to the subject into a shrine and/or another battlefield. With that in mind, I think Kierzek may be right. Maybe we should create a Wiki-page entitled: Bibliography of Controversial World War II Literature and allow that to speak for itself. It can include Japanese, British, French Polish, German, Russian, and American works which are less than honest in their depiction of the war and its details. Each listed book would require a short description about its "questionable" contents. Just a thought.--Obenritter (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see List of books by or about Adolf Hitler. Kierzek (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kierzek: I had a look & was surprised to see a "List of articles" -- this seems rather indiscriminate. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, criteria is lacking. Kierzek (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kierzek: Thanks for the heads up; I'll keep an eye on this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Nomination "Battle of Prokhorovka"

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

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

Not a bad idea. It will be a very short article though when extracted, almost a stub. I won't mind getting some help with that. EyeTruth (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it may also not be necessary to break it out. I checked readable prose size and it's currently 45 kB (and 7600 words), which going by WP:SIZERULE is reasonable. EyeTruth (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EyeTruth: I think that both options (simultaneously) are valid. Since it's a sufficiently notable, named operation, a stand-alone article is justified. At the same time, the present Ronald content would stay in the original article as is. If I create a stand-alone article, any further expansion can occur there, rather than in the Prokhorovka article.

I've not done a battle article from scratch before, so perhaps I'll attempt this over the weekend -- needs Prelude, Aftermath, etc. That way the "Roland project" can proceed, while not impacting the FAC nomination at all. What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. This going to be quite some work though. EyeTruth (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the feedbacks. A few of the citations that you removed are the only supporting ones. I want to re-add them (but will merge them also wherever necessary). Please feel free to verify. Also, I plan to create the article for Roland soon, and will drop the link here. EyeTruth (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EyeTruth: No problem at all; please feel free to restore as needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you noticed, but I've created Operation Roland. Also these all the cites that I readded, and I provided brief explanations in the individual edit summaries. EyeTruth (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Harpe / Wehrmachtbericht

Why did you remove the "Wehrmachtbericht reference" including the text boxes? [1]. Hackercraft (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hackercraft: this content has been deemed undue. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. "deemed undue"? By whom? For what reason? I expected a very active and involved editor such as you to clarify the point, and elucidate the reasoning. Afterall, one presumes the removal of information, which relates directly to the subject of an article, must be for a very obvious and compelling reason. Hackercraft (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hackercraft: Sure, there have been multiple discussions on the topic: at NPOV noticeboard, MilHist, and various Talk pages. Here's a sampling:

Does this help clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defending your proposed deletion for Page Onads Communications

@K.e.coffman: Onads Communications is one of the reputed Creative and Digital Agency in India which has a strong web presence as well, which I have mentioned while creating the page. There is no commercial beneficial intention creating the page. This is just a step to aware general people and help them with proper information. However it's good you took time to review and tried judging the decision, I hope you are now clear about the facts. Kindly let me know for any further required information. Deepak (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onads Communications. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouTuber deletions

Mjbmr is now very upset after the twenty or so deletions in the last month of articles they created after nominations by you and User:Hawkeye75. As you'll have seen they've now nominated more of their own article creations to make a WP:POINT and they're objecting on admin noticeboards. I am not surprised they are upset, as these rapid nominations come across as mobbing of their contributions. While these deleted YouTubers might actually all be non-notable, some of them did have press coverage and they were not total non-entities. Did you each make efforts, per WP:BEFORE, to check for additional coverage? An article creator swamped with such a volume of nominations will find it difficult to come up with sources, and as AfD participants seem less willing than they used to do to attempt to find sources, such as swathe of deletion nominations become a fait accompli. It doesn't seem very kind and could have been handled better. Fences&Windows 12:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fences and windows: Thank you for your message. While I sympathise with Mjbrm's predicament, the outcome of the deletion discussions is clear: the vast majority of these articles were on nn subjects. By looking at my AfD log, I see that I nominated the first 'YouTuber' article on 6 April and the last one on April 26. That's quite a bit of time in between. BTW, in one of these AfDs, I was accused of being part of a "conspiracy to stop YouTubers making money, while there is also a huge wave of unmonetizing videos of these YouTuber, this somehow is related to Google". :-) Source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Flentzeris.

I performed BEFORE before nominating, and my conclusion was that the articles did not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and contained content that was no encyclopedically relevant (i.e. number of subscribers and collaboration with other nn acts, cited to tabloid-like coverage). The last one just closed today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BigDawsTv) -- it was extremely well attended, perhaps due to the on-going discussions on various noticeboards. Some additional sources were indeed presented but the editors who have subsequently voted did not find them compelling.

I hope this clarifies. Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About Felix Velarde...

Hi - I am the subject of this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Velarde Felix Velarde 17:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Somebody's pointed out this page is marked for deletion and asked me what they might do about it. Acknowledging that my ego is bruised ;) but resilient, my question is about how information should be laid out in order that (any) notability is clear (or at least that a decision is made on the basis of more clearly-articulated achievements).

For what it's worth, I started one of the world's first web design firms, created one of the sites considered a template for creative UGC (in this case sites like YouTube), had the first Interactive TV agency, the first eCRM agency (and defined the discipline both as a strategist and professor), was an adjunct at Hult, and now work with Vint Cerf (inventor of TCP/IP) to propagate the Internet via People-Centered Internet in partnership with the World Economic Forum, and so on.

I know I am deeply conflicted here, so your advice would be welcome as to how and if I should pass on advice to the editor who asked (a professor at Nottingham University, with whom I have never worked and is unrelated).

Thanks very much Felix Velarde 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@FelixVelarde: Hi, thanks for your message. While I sympathise, I do not find that the notability is there. I shared some thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felix Velarde. You are welcome to post there, of course, if you'd like to present additional sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

answers in genesis edit

Wikipedia should never be used as a forum in which to air personal grievances against an organization/individual. Nothing on a Wikipedia page should contain pejorative terms (such as "pseudoscience") or other personal attack. All content should be for informational purposes only.

To add "pseudoscience" is to assume the reader is incapable of forming their own thoughts and opinions on the matter and is an insult to the reader.

Please do not reduce Wikipedia to just another site containing negative personal opinions.

@Cncyana: Another editor has said it better than I could: The main reason why Answers in Genesis promotes pseudoscience is that it pretends to be science (which it is not, and denies much of real science). K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadezhda Fedutenko

You deleted some her awards from the infobox as "excessive". But isn't full listing of awards in infoboxes customary in English Wikipedia (cf 1, 2, 3)? Эйхер (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Эйхер: It may be common, but I don't view it as optimal. In this example (Irina Sebrova), "unneeded iconography" actually makes it harder for readers to see what makes the subject distinctive. Having the infobox state "Hero of the Soviet Union" is more direct and does not make the infobox a puzzle, as in: "what do these images mean"? Compare with another of my edits, at the Tulsi Gabbard article.

Hope this clarifies where I'm coming from. Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- your second example was quite garish; why put the picture of the award next to the profile photo? The article is about the man, not the medal. Please see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walter Oesau.jpg

Hello again. You replaced the portrait photo of Walter Oesau with a sketch portrait. I think such omission is detrimental to readers. When the article passed GA, it used the non-free image. Should this be reinserted and then taken to FFD please? --George Ho (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Thank you for your message. I've followed your suggestion; pls see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 23#File:Walter_Oesau.jpg. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

I don't know if you got my ping (not sure how well pings have been working recently), but I asked a little favour regarding checking sources for accurate usage and for avoidance of close paraphrasing at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Prokhorovka/archive2 as you seem to have some of the print sources. If you can't do this, don't worry, we'll find another way. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Unfortunately, I don't have these books on hand at the moment. It might take me about a week to get them, but I'd be happy to do so. Please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotthard Heinrici, new material added, need some book details

Hi K.e. I have added a passage in the assessments section on Heinrici's response to the Commissar Order. Its from the excellent The German War by Nicholas Stargardt. The trouble is I do not have the page number to hand as my copy is at my partners' and I am relying on the Google books preview. I know it's in part 3, chapter 6 "German crusade". Do you have a copy to hand? Regards, Irondome (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Irondome: I do have the book; the passage you are referring to is on page 171. BTW, I've updated the list of books in my permanent collection; it can be found here: User:K.e.coffman/Library. I'd be happy to look up information from those if needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated K.e! Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]