User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2019/October

Archives

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gas van and also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#An eyewitness account.--Assayer (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "Soviets invented gas vans" trope is often used by Holocaust deniers... see here. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. I was wondering when that fable would come up ever since hearing about the existence of the Soviet gas van. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. In the sources I checked there was no any mention of claims by Petro Grigorenko or about a television series aired in the United States in 1993 about Soviet vans. That might be true, but you never know what kind of nonsense an anonymous account on blogs ("Sergey Romanov") may post. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ealdgyth: thank you for your comments. You are welcome to participate in the above-linked discussions at NPOVN and RSN, as comments from uninvolved editors would be helpful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Franz Halder

Hello! Your submission of Franz Halder at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Maths Time Joy

Hi there. I submitted this draft – Draft:Maths Time Joy – but you rejected it because not 'notable enough', specifying it fails WP:MUSICBIO. However, WP:MUSICBIO shows the criteria for musicians and ensembles, meaning artists more generally I suppose. Maths Time Joy has made a name for himself mainly as a producer and songwriter, having worked with artists such as Mahalia Burkmar, Bebe Rexha and Romans (musician), as well as having been nominated for a Grammy for his work on Gallant's album Ology. So, really, the criteria for his page are shown in WP:COMPOSER. And I personally believe he meets those criteria. Also, Maths Time Joy was awarded the PRS Foundation Writer-Producer Fund a few months ago, with PRS for Music being the leading music royalty collection society in the UK. So if it's good enough for them, why would it not be for Wikipedia, may I suggest? Especially considering there's plenty of other people - including artists, producers, musicians, songwriters, etc. - with fewer achievements, who have pages on Wikipedia. Would you mind re-reviewing please? Many thanks, Davideventi (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, can you please help with this? Thanks. --Davideventi (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Davideventi: I generally do not re-review the drafts. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you. Davideventi (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works
Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

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) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gunther von Kluge

Care to join me at Talk:Günther_von_Kluge#20_July_plot;_manner_of_death? --Dynaflow babble 19:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dynaflow: Thanks for the note; I responded on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As did I, in a follow-up. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 05:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee and books

Recently read Welzer and Neitzel's Soldaten; very enlightening... and sobering. Glad to have found it through your library. Have you thought about using it in the myth of the clean Wehrmacht article? ♠Vami _IV†♠ 04:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: Thank you. The "clean Wehrmacht" article is already quite long, so I don't anticipate working futher on it. Yes, Soldaten was excellent. It sort of presents the inner thoughts of the participants -- very insightful. I recently finished Shepherd, Ben H. (2016). Hitler's Soldiers: The German Army in the Third Reich. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300179030. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) It provides more of a high-level view of the German armed force: from tactics to doctrine; from ideology to criminality; from soldier to general. I would recommed it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another one to add to your collection

I'll take care of this, but have a looksie at this tidbit from the Battle of Crete: "Although the conquest of Crete was considered a grandiose victory of the airborne corps," cited to the beloved Kurowski. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a choice of words; "grandiose", eh. Does that mean one could say the Battle of Stalingrad, for example, was a "grandiose" defeat for Nazi Germany or the Battle of Berlin was a "grandiose" victory for the Soviet Union? That was a good catch, Indy beetle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kierzek (talk • contribs)

@Indy beetle: thank you; a good one. Added to the collection. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA notice

Amendment request: German war effort, which you were a party to, has been declined by the arbitration committee. The request has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort#Amendment request: German war effort (October 2019). – bradv🍁 15:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with my colleagues that we do not need to examine Peacemaker's conduct. I shall submit a further piece of guidance: K.e.coffman's participation in this matter does not impress. Going by their own timeline, K.e. has been politely and reasonedly criticised by Peacemaker on a handful of occasions – hardly unexpected. K.e. has never written back to Peacemaker, except when they wrote this December 2018 post addressing marginal issues about tone without rebutting the substantial concerns. K.e. now comes to this committee, asking us to examine Peacemaker's conduct. I suggest K.e.coffman try dealing with the points of Peacemaker or others at an early point; they may even find that discussion resolves matters. Nothing in this comment should discourage further applications for consideration under the general remedy, from K.e.coffman or others. AGK ■ 20:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That was some stern advice there. I hope that you learn from it. Regards, --Pudeo (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Pudeo

@Pudeo: your continued preoccupation with my editing is not surprising; see for example your 2017 ANI comment [1], complete with fake quotes and a misunderstanding of basic Wikipedia policies. The response from a non-involved editor was [2]:

[I] am struck by the last comment [from Pudeo]. Firstly, by the implied disparagement of K.e.coffman's editing (including scare quotes). Secondly by the lack of any supporting diffs. Finally, by the rather amazing model of circular reasoning in the last sentence: Non-notable Luftwaffe pilots don't have reliable sources about them (otherwise they would be notable), so we gladly rely on non-reliable sources. Wow.

That said, thank you for so helpfully reposting the ARCA comment here. Gosh, how did I not see that one? There were other comments, and I am happy to return the favour, in case you missed them:

I will say that all editors should absolutely refrain from commenting about the competency of editors who have clearly shown themselves to be proficient and capable contributors. Mkdw talk 18:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I do also find Serial Number 54129's point about the MILHIST co-ordinators interesting, and would counsel the MILHIST group to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden when like minded people are managing everything. WormTT (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This is excellent advice. Superb even. I look forward to you heeding it in your future editing. Warmest regards, --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Wilhelm Keitel

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wilhelm Keitel 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 Fiamh -- Fiamh (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]