User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2016/June

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

Aftermath section in Barbarossa[edit]

Hi K.e. I think it's best to hold off on any edits to that section till consensus on linking it is confirmed to the infobox. I have a few ideas on how it should read which gives a more balanced view, i.e the Axis forces were never again able to mount an offensive on the entire Eastern front, and the surprising recovery of Red Army armaments production. Note that Operation blue was just a shadow of Barbarossa, and subsequent Nazi offensives diminished in scale and ambition, culminating in Kursk. Also a major Red Army offensive was mounted in May 42 with huge resources, which was stymied, due to poor tactical control. But the bottom line was that the Red Army was able to outnumber the Heer in that offensive. On a side note, check out Second Battle of Kharkov which I am hoping to link to aftermath. Its a POV mess. I had to take out an Irving quote just 20 minutes ago. A David Irving citation still lurking on WP?? FFS! Anyway, take a look at the article. I'm seeing some classic BS that you enjoy debunking. I would suggest a conversation on how aftermath is to be shaped, ideally taking in some of the 5 points that I was shot down over. I think there is scope there. Cheers. Simon Irondome (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Irondome: Yes, good suggestions. I've removed the obvious POV stuff such as "shipped to Germany" (vs "deported") and "conquering", among others. Agree with your line of reasoning. So give it about a week or so? What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me K.e. Catch you later today. Cheers Irondome (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Party number and SS number[edit]

K.e. I would ask that if known and cited, please leave in the NSDAP and SS membership numbers for bio articles; it can be of interest to many readers and helps tell one when they joined (early member or "bandwagoner") and also, I have had at least one occasion where others have argued someone was not a "Nazi" as they were not a Party member; not the strongest argument, for sure, but when you present to them the Party membership number it helps end that argument. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense! I re-added the numbers to Hermann Florstedt‎ and Michael Wittmann. Would you have a cite for Wittmann? I'd like to submit it for B-class review in the near future as the article appears to be in good shape now. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have an RS cite from Wittmann's membership number; in fact, I don't have any works on Wittmann. I checked Google Books just now and the only one I saw who cited his number was Agte. Its up to you whether you want to cite him for that or not. Kierzek (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kierzek Just out of interest, the "old Nazis" called post March 33 NSDAP members March Violets Irondome (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kierzek, thanks for checking on Wittmann. In this particular case, the number is probably not important, as his notability was not due to his SS career or role as a party functionary. So I think it's safe to remove. For articles such as on Hermann Florstedt‎, the numbers look much more relevant. Thanks for explaining the informative value of these numbers, which I've not considered before. I'll refrain from removing them unless a lack of citation is blocking a review, and an RS cannot be found.
Irondome, thanks for sharing—always something interesting to learn on Wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to note that there was not a link to the phenomenon on WP, so I had to link the Kerr novel. It would make an interesting article or section in the nazi party article. I was aware of it for decades, since uni days. It just stuck in my memory. Nazi humour indeed! Irondome (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, K.e. his number is not needed. As for the "March Violets", I had heard that term before, but not in a long time. A chassis example of "old timers" being jealous of the wave of "bandwagon" Germans who joined after the Nazis came to power. Kierzek (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Creation Research[edit]

Wouldn't {{primary sources}} be more appropriate? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jim1138. I updated the tag and responded on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts[edit]

K. e. Do have a look at this article. It still needs copy edit work. I am not happy with the current layout. The lede is too long and detailed and really there is still too much redundancy between it and the "History" section. As you know the lede is only to be a summary of the main points of an article. The lede needs to be shortened and some of the detailed information in it should be put into the "History" section; and then the redundancy (of detail) removed in the latter section. And as I said recently, the "Reference" section needs work (including sfn of the cites). Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pinging me on this. I've done some edits for NPOV and concision. Will go back later and work some of the background back into the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to A-class articles[edit]

G'day, I notice that you have been removing large amounts of text from A-class articles, for instance here, here, here. While I have no doubt you are doing so with the best of intentions, perhaps a better way of doing this would be to request an A-class re-appraisal, where you could outline your concerns. As these articles were promoted by consensus, you could then gauge whether there was consensus to remove this information. The current situation has resulted in stress for MisterBee1966, who has said that they are retiring. MisterBee has done a lot of work to improve Wikipedia and it would be a shame to lose them. As such, I respectfully ask that you consider pausing and trying to engage in a broader consensus building approach, where all views can be discussed prior to implementation. My suggestion would be to pick one article, nom it for A-class reappraisal and then invite interested parties to comment. That could then serve as a test case to establish a broad consensus either way. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Thank you for your note; I responded at Talk:Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: I feel like I need to clarify as it could be construed from above ("current situation has resulted in stress for [the editor]") that I drove MisterB off Wikipedia with my approach to editing. MisterB's retirement was not related to the diffs above, as I did not make these edits until after June 4, while MisterB announced their retirement on June 1. The events that appeared to have precipitated MisterB's departure were related to the May 30th Wehrmachtbericht topic above; please see this and this.
Apart from me being on the receiving end of a string of (unjustified) "vandalism" labels, MisterB's and my interactions were quite civil, especially after the epic MilHist discussion on GA articles and Franz Kurowski, after which we seem to have decided to do our own separate things. I did not expect this outcome, but it happened. I wish MisterB well. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, agreed in relation to these specific articles, and I'm not seeking to throw any stones here. In fact, I am hoping to get all parties talking again and potentially try to mend some fences so the project keeps valuable editors on both sides of the debate. That said, I believe the removal of content from other articles (for instance Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski and Erich von Manstein) in a similar fashion to those articles cited above did potentially contribute to MB's decision. I'm not saying the removal is necessarily unjustified, all I'm saying is that large scale removal of content from articles that have been reviewed through consensus-based processes probably should be re-reviewed through the same processes, with the concerns being discussed in those forums. This will achieve a couple of things: (hopefully) broad consensus for an approach, and also potentially adjust the process's standards so that similar issues are not accepted by it (if it is deemed that the original approach was flawed); or it will re-affirm the original acceptance of such material. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have pre-emptively restored these three articles to their pre-existing (A-Class) state. I would like to know what other A-Class articles have been subject to this editing approach. Consensus for changes of this scale should be sought via the A-Class re-assessment process. I will participate in such a process for any and all articles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert and Peacemaker67: thank you for your comments. It should be further clarified that in the case of Manstein's and Bach-Zalewski's articles MisterB tried to add content, which was subsequently removed by several editors, not just myself. The Wehrmachtbericht transcript was never part of these two articles.
In any case, regarding the GA reassessment process should I be using "Individual reassessment" or "community reassessment" track? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A community re-assessment would seem the most appropriate in the circumstances as it gives more editors the opportunity to make decisions, thus hopefully adding to the legitimacy of any outcome. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption within the Wehrmacht[edit]

Hello, K.e.coffman. Corruption within the Wehrmacht, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the nomination failed on a technicality, a rule I wasn't aware of. However, there seems to be a strong view that the hook is well worth going on the main page if you could get the article promoted to GA status. Do you have any plans as such? Calistemon (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Calistemon: That's a good idea; I got the book with the Goda work on the topic and will review to see if the article needs any adjustments. Are there any other sources that you've seen that may be helpful? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what is currently covered in the article only the German one that I have already mentioned. If you do decide to carry out further work to get it to GA status I would suggest mentioning other forms of corruption in the Wehrmacht as well, at least in the lead. From what little I had a look into there seems to have been a culture of selling anything from food to weapons by Wehrmacht, police and civil administration in occupied territories. Calistemon (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Calistemon: Yes, I saw in literature the content along these lines, especially as it related to work permits. I will to try to find out more; agree, that other forms of corruption should be mentioned as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The danger I can see is that the article could unintentionally become something of a Himmerod memorandum on corruption within the Wehrmacht by mentioning only the highest ranking Generals and thereby incorrectly exonerating the rest of the Wehrmacht. While corruption at lower levels may have been "small fry" compare to the sums received by the high command it also seems to have been very widespread. I've added a little paragraph to the intro stating that much a few days ago. The source, while initially seeming a bit dubious, possibly Ukrainian-nationalistic, is actually Canadian and the work of, from what I could establish, a qualified historian. Calistemon (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make valid points, Calistemon. I reproposed the renaming, as Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers. This will allow to narrow the scope to what's currently discussed in the article, while leaving the current name ("Corruption") for a future broader article. I posted the discussion at the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gustloff[edit]

Did the older talk get archived? Sca (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please see: diff. Now in Talk:MV_Wilhelm_Gustloff/Archive_2.K.e.coffman (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but perhaps I'm blind – I don't see how one accesses the archive from the main talk page. Sca (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's in one of the yellow boxes: "Archives: 1, 2". Can you see it now? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Don't see any yellow boxes. Sca (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sca, if you search the page for the phrase "Archives: 1, 2" (without quotation marks), do you hit anything? If not, then it's possible that your browser is configured to bypass the yellow boxes. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't turn up a thing. Tried looking in edit mode, too.
The only box I see on the page is the big, cream- or tan-colored one at top with subsections. I've tried opening all those.... I'm mystified. Can't imagine why my browser (Firefox) would bypass boxes of any color. Sca (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I tried changing appearance preferences, which accomplished zilch, then went back to my preferred Monobook, and voila, there it was! I know it wasn't there before, and the search function didn't find it before either. (But K.e., you don't seriously describe that background tint as yellow, do you?) Sca (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M4 Sherman[edit]

We need to get rid of that unreliable 1950 newspaper source, and I can't do it alone. I need a sensible person to help put an end to the stalemate with Andy Dingley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxRavenclaw (talk • contribs) 11:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxRavenclaw: Thanks for reminding me; it's been a while since I started the topic: Talk:M4_Sherman#Opening_para. I will check in Zaloga's Armored Champion and come back. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxRavenclaw: I've posted to the talk page that I question comparing a medium tank to a heavy tank in this way, especially in the lead.

  • In spite of being surpassed by German medium and heavy tanks late in the war, the M4 Sherman proved to be very reliable, cheaper to produce and available in greater numbers.[1]

References

  1. ^ Bean, CEW. "Korea Has Spotlighted The Vital Role Of The Tank". Sydney Morning Herald, 17 Aug. 1950

This sounds like a variation of the theme of "it takes 10 Shermans to kill one Tiger". I think this belongs under Wonder weapons in my userpage collection. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zaloga can be a bit contradictory about the M4 at times. Armored Thunderbolt confused me a bit. Armored Champ was OK, though. Great read and I constantly use it as a source because of it. Sadly I only have the ebook version so I can't cite exact pages. Anyway, thanks for the help on the M4 page. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond[edit]

Please respond here. Your POV tag is still holding up a DYK nom. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Acdixon: Thank you for you note; I will respond within 24 hours. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations of articles on Knight's Cross recipients for deletion[edit]

G'day. I've noticed that you have been nominating articles on Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients for deletion, after you have deleting significant amounts of text and possible sources from them. You have also made no attempt to establish "what links here", which would have quickly provided citations for the awards (where the awards weren't already cited in the article). That type of behaviour is deplorable, and not appropriate on en WP. I suggest you stop, otherwise I will take your conduct to ANI and request that the community sanction you for it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I appear to be following the appropriate processes and guidelines: Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. In the case of Georg Schönberger, for example, I just left the following comment:
The WP:Soldier states,

"In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour." The footnote states: "Some awards are/were bestowed in different grades. For the purpose of this notability guide only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies. See: Discussion regarding awards with multiple grades."

While the Knight's Cross was a prestigious award, it was not the highest grade (there ware Swords, Diamonds, etc). Moreover, the GNG still needs to be met, through multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources, which appear to be lacking in this case. The sources that I see are memoirs by Kurt Meyer and a work by a HIAG-affiliated Patrick Agte: Google books.
Please also see Waffen-SS in popular culture on these two authors. That's my read on where things stand with this nomination; I'd be happy to be corrected via presentation of sources, or clarification on the grade of the award.
Here's another example: Helmut Wendorff; the article has been tagged Refimprove since Dec 2015; while the accuracy of the article has been disputed since 2013. This appears to be sufficient time to improve an article.
Could you please specify what is inappropriate about using the existing process? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, you have been deleting information and sources from the articles prior to nominating them (ie have removed information that might assist other authors to locate reliable sources on the person in question), and have made no attempt to follow "what links here", which would have taken you to lists where the citation for the awards are provided (where they are not already there). You are using a unique concept of what a reliable source is, rather than using what en WP uses. It is clear from the ongoing GAR that you misunderstand or misapply several core en WP policies, including notability and verifiability. I believe these misunderstandings are resulting in you effectively vandalising en WP with your deletionist zeal. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify how "What links here" is helpful? For example, Georg Schönberger is indeed listed in the List of Knight's Cross recipients 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler; but the material is not cited and only a link back to Georg Schönberger is provided, which is uncited.
On the other point, I'll go back to the nominations and will provide the links to the tagged versions, but I honestly do not see how that would be helpful either. For example, here's the January 2016 version of Hermann Lang (SS officer) after it's been tagged "Unreliable sources": Hermann Lang, 2016. It was in this state for 6 months. I believe this is a sufficient window to improve an article.
In any case, I appear to be following the established process and guidelines re: Notability, and that GNG still needs to be met. Could you please clarify what's inappropriate about following this process? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You will note I have not mentioned Schönberger, the handling of which does not apparently entirely accord with your practice (as demonstrated in your other recent nominations). I was referring to all the other nominations you have made, where you have deleted large amounts of text, including what you apparently believe are "non-notable" awards (demonstrating your clear misunderstanding of the notability policy), as well as some unused references that you apparently don't think are reliable, or weren't being used for citations. Given en WP has been around for a long time, and citation standards have not always been as they are now, references not currently used for citations are usually indications of where editors may find the information provided in the article, so deleting them denies other editors the opportunity to follow that trail to sources that may meet the GNG. Google Books searches are a very blunt instrument, only useful for locating some information in some more recently published books, they shouldn't be assumed to provide links to all the information available on a subject. Your tagging is clearly linked to your text and source deletion and nomination behaviour. If you are actually interested in doing your due diligence for each nomination, I suggest that you check the relevant "alphabetical" list for each person, where you will find citations for every award, the rank of the recipient at the time, and the position they held at the time of their award. This will avoid spurious observations about uncited awards in your nomination statements. In every single case you will find citations in the relevant alphabetical list. I also suggest you attempt to establish whether sources exist in German for these people, as well as in English. For example, a Google Books search doesn't give you hits on the German or Austrian dictionaries of biography, and they should always be checked when doing a nomination of a German or Austrian military person. They are, of course, available online for free. Again, I strongly suggest you do your due diligence on each nomination instead of blithely nominating multiple articles without doing your homework in terms of a proper justification. I'd also observe that some editors on en WP take a very dim view of deletionism, of which I am afraid your current behaviour smacks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for the suggestion on using Neue Deutsche Biographie; I have done so for most of the articles I nominated, but was unable to locate any entries. Regarding sources and content I follow WP:V and WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. The latter states:

Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. (...) Articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Editors are encouraged to extensively survey the available literature—and, in particular, any available historiographic commentary—regarding an article's topic in order to identify every source considered to be authoritative or significant; these sources should, if possible, be directly consulted when writing the article.

The sources discussed at Waffen-SS in popular culture are WP:QS: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest". Kurowski et al. have indeed been questioned by reputable historians in published works.

Various tags, such as "Refimprove" and "Unreliable sources", state: Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2012) ... etc. Could you clarify what is inappropriate about following these established guidelines and procedures? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your editing history with these articles, you appear to be unaware of/uninterested in WP:BEFORE which outlines what editors should do before nominating an article for deletion. There certainly is no indication whatsoever that you have even tried to follow BEFORE. Our deletion procedures are predicated on following the whole AfD guideline, not picking and choosing what bits you use. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: What I see are assumptions of what I did and did not do, while the last point on the WP:BEFORE states: "...at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}." These tags had already been applied either by me or by other contributors; it appears that 6 months to several years is sufficient time to improve an article and establish notability.
In any case, none of the nominated articles appear to cover notable subjects. My involvement with these articles has been on-going since I came across them via the German panzer aces list. I've taken several passes at the articles to remove dubious, unsourced and unreliably sourced material, and I've not seen attempts from other editors to improve the articles. This suggests to me that the wikipedia community is not overly concerned about having these articles as part of its body of knowledge.
To illustrate my point: if I see something tagged in an article on my watchlist, I usually go back to the article (within a week) and provide requested citation, if I care enough to retain this material. For example, here (Otto Weidinger) and here (Himmerod memorandum).
I see deletion as normal part of living and breathing encyclopedia, that is why these processes and procedures exist, to provide checks and balances. I've had an article I created go through the deletion process. Instead of chastising the nominator for "deletionism", I provided additional sources and the nomination was withdrawn (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waffen-SS in Action). I do not see this happening with the articles I nominated--it's appears that RS on these subjects either do not exist, or that there's little interest from the community in retaining these articles, or both. See for example:
The fact of a high award does not trump WP:GNG, which still needs to be demonstrated through "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources", as WP:Soldier states. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

Holocaust Denial website was used on Erwin Rommel page as source[edit]

It was concealed so that you could only see it if you would go to edit the hyperlink. It led to Adelaide_Institute. I made a thread about in the talk page.It might be worth reviewing other sources in view that this was done weeks ago and I stumbled on it by chance. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount: Thank you for your note. It appears to have been an honest mistake, which has been rectified. I responded on the Talk page on a separate, but related, issue of including a citation to Weston: Talk:Erwin_Rommel#Weston. My thinking is that it may have been undue to have included it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operational art[edit]

Just had a look at the article but it left me puzzled because I thought that it came between tactics and strategy. Does operational art have connotations other than the operational level of war? Keith-264 (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: You are right: operational level of war indeed falls between strategy and tactics. Was the article not making it clear? Then perhaps it should be adjusted. Please let me know more. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was pretty tired when I read it but it seemed to lean rather heavily on a contemporary US manual, which is always fraught with danger over matters of word definition, neologism and a sublime indifference to the concept of the sentence. (not that I'm bitter mind ;O)) Do you have any earlier sources on the history of the term and derivation? Keith-264 (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith-264: Here's a good source: The Evolution of Operational Art: From Napoleon to the Present, by John Andreas Olsen and Martin van Creveld. I'll see what I can include from there. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: June 2016[edit]

Yes, indeed. That was reckless of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.26.168 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You might want to apologise to the editor to see if you can mend fences. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption within the Wehrmacht[edit]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Corruption within the Wehrmacht has been completed.

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

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: Awesome, thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graf Strachwitz[edit]

Thank you for your request to look at the article, raised at project QAI. I responded by copy-editing. I don't think addressing individual members is a good idea, all work for QAI is volontary, active members of the "cabal of the outcasts" are watching ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the club, - I had no idea that you just signed in to the "merrily unorganized group"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Article improvement is the topic that's of interest to me. I have one GA article (HIAG—from pretty much a stub), but mostly have been working on bringing existing articles to B-class, and creating new ones on topics that have not been covered before. On the original message, point taken. I will cease and desist. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked at your impressive user page, even longer than my own (ready to split a bit?)! Asking a Jewish member to read that extra long biography might not be the best idea, as I see you understood ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is Gerda Arendt Are you saying not to pick the battle at the GAR for this BLP or something else at QAI? Just want to make sure I'm on the same page if it was something I contributed to. :) —PermStrump(talk) 11:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are asking. I think I clearly said that individual project members would watch and act on the mentioning on the project talk, - actually the noticeboard WP:QAIPOST might be watched more, because I recommended it to non-members. Feel free to see articles open for review on top, and post your own. - I split my user page, there are subpages for memories and images, on top of archives, and I feel your fan mail might also be better kept on a subpage, compared to being loaded every time someone wants to get to know you. - An individual member might be Jewish, and might be irritated by the request to read the World War II bio, - that's all I what I wanted to say: mention requests on the project unrestricted, but approach individual members only selectively. - GAR is not a thing I typically get involved with, time is limited, and I prefer creating. I read the Strachwitz article anyway (had been asked about the spelling of person's name already a while ago), - well, it's very detailed, but who am I to say too much so. Not all GAs are created equal. This one is not in my focus of interest, so I thought I did what I could. That doesn't mean that you - much closer to the topic - should not pursue the review. I wouldn't call it a "battle" though, - I heard the word battle too often in my career here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would call it a debate :-). Which I think is an important one; here's an even more problematic GA article: Joachim Helbig, with sources that include fabulist Franz Kurowski and a variety of right-wing and extreme right-wing publishers, such as VDM Heinz Nickel [de] and Pour le Mérite Verlag [de]. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can interest Diannaa, who is much more familiar with the topics? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These discussions seem to crop up every couple of years, but continue to remain unresolved: (1) 2013: Recent deletions of so called unreliable sources and (2) Helden der Wehrmacht, also from 2013. That was way before I started editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2016/June&oldid=1140471452"