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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walkover Technologies

Hi,

You have marked the page as corporate spam! It is not a promotional page at all because Walkover is the parent company under which various products are developed and it is by the product's name that the audience knows. In fact, the most viable product, MSG91 is pretty well-known and it isn't even mentioned here. Walkover doesn't generate any revenue or even influence any audience through this page. Sincerely request you to reconsider and guide in the right direction to change the content as required.

Thanks in advance!

Sonali7169 (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walkover Technologies. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Page moves

Hello. Please note that by usurping the title Christian Tychsen (turning a redirect into a disambiguation page), you've made over 100 incoming links direct to a disambiguation page (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Christian_Tychsen), which is a problem. All or most of the links appear to be referring to Christian Tychsen (Waffen-SS). Thus, in this case, I think your move was premature, as the German army officer is likely the primary topic, and the governor a secondary topic (less than 5 incoming articles). Otherwise, it is strongly recommended to alter all incoming links so that articles and templates still direct to the intended article(s). Please see MOS:DAB for more disambiguation guidelines. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Animalparty: thank you for your message. The incoming links are most likely due to the template that contains hundreds of other names, and which I have already updated (diff). I suspect that it takes Wikipedia a short while to recognise the change. Otherwise, there's no reason for the Erwin Rommel article to link to a page on a mid-level SS commander. Likewise Paul Hausser did not link to the page in questions, except through a different template. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikilinks to authors

Hello, K.e. While I agree that such linking is not controversial, it also strikes me as unnecessary, and if it is going to be done at all, it should be done consistently; for example, why link to Stahel and House and not to Glantz and Sharp? Since there is no article for Charles Sharp (apart from an English cricketer who died more than a century ago), would you propose that he be red-linked? In my view, we should give the users credit that, if they have enough interest, they can do their own searches without linking everything. I would be interested to hear your counter-argument.

Having said that, I took some time to read parts of your user page after reverting your first edit, and I must say I am very impressed with your work. Your Rommel Myth article, in particular, is very well done. I plan to look at more of your work when I get the chance. With my own work I'm trying to help set the record straight on the Soviet-German War, as a counter to the panzer fan-boys and the SS/Heer apologists. I hope some of that work will be of use to you in future.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wreck Smurfy: Thank you for your work on these articles. It does seem reflective of the "Cold-war era POV" that almost every division & divisional commander of the German armed forces has a page, while entire Soviet offensive operations, involving hundreds of thousands of troops, do not. Once I'm done with my "de-Nazification project" (as some editors call it, see Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), section "Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners"), I hope to contribute to those.

Specific to the author links, I personally find them useful. Due to the nature of my editing, a lot rides on the sources being used, so to quickly get to an author's page (or at least be able to see that this author has a page), is quite helpful. It's also much easier to debate sources when there's a Wiki article present, as editors cannot dismiss my concerns as "unfounded personal opinions" and describe their removal as "vandalism". That's in part why Franz Kurowski's article (which same editors have called an "attack page" :-) ) is so comprehensive. Things started moving a lot faster with the removal of his numerous works after it went live.

So I believe that both RS and non-RS authors should be linked. For RS authors that would hopefully mean that these articles could be further improved. And for obvious reasons for non RS authors, so that editors can learn more about the source being cited. From a practical standpoint, when I use FindLink, I usually put these articles on my watch list, as these are the types of articles that I would typically be interested in editing. Hopes this explains where I coming from with the linking. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested template for deletion

Template:SCDiamonds, the people mentioned are in both Spanish Cross#Gold with Diamonds and List of Spanish Cross in Gold with Swords and Diamonds recipients. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Thank you for nominating. Another template that could stand the same is Template:KCwithGoldenCCC as an unnecessary cross categorisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

About those aces

I was looking at Category:World War II flying aces. We have 501 non-German aces against 494 German ones. (Counted in my head--hope I'm correct.) If it wasn't for the Czechs it'd be a tie. If I remember correctly, there is one Germany, and a lot of other countries, and all this is just very unlikely... Drmies (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: I believe it's mostly a question of math, from several standpoints. First, German pilots during WWII were not rotated out of combat missions after a certain number of sorties. For example, I know that the Western Allies had their bomber pilots rotate out after 25 missions. Not so for the Luftwaffe: the pilots flew until they were either killed, wounded or taken prisoner. So they generally accumulated more sorties and had more opportunities for victories.

I'm not sure how things worked for the Soviet Air Force, but we have a different "math" situation here. German pilots accumulated large number of victories in the grievous (for the Red Air Force) first months of the invasion in 1941, so we have very high claim numbers for the Eastern Front.

Lastly, only about 5 percent of Heroes of the Soviet Unions have en.wiki articles, vs 50% overall for the Knight's Cross recipients. For Luftwaffe personnel (by me looking at various articles and templates), it's about 80 percent. For the Experten ("aces") I would say it's close to 100%. Hence you get so many articles on Luftwaffe aces. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

SS ranks

Hello K.e.coffman, you recently deleted from Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski lede the wording "Lieutenant general" I had added days before. It is my intention to continue to integrate similar pages with what I consider the necessary English explanation of linguistical abstrusities (from the English viewpoint) like Obergruppenführer, Schutzmannschaft, Sturmabteilung and similaria. I know, connoisseurs can pronounce properly and well understand their meaning; they may even thrill a little on such encounters. Not so the common English flock. And to be sure of my latter assertion I followed the rule of thumb I had read about long ago somewhere on Wikipedia, most likely in one of the MOSs, namely that if the questionable word does not appear on the Merriam-Webster online dictionary that word is pretty absent from the mind of English speaking people, and therefore, I deduced, it needs to be corroborated by an English term. On the other hand I don't like to waste my time on futile operations; so, please, tell me, where are my wrongings? I wish you well. Carlotm (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Carlotm: Thank you for your message. I think it's good to have a discussion on this. Since I reverted to an earlier version of the article, the entry is still there:

• ...a German SS Lieutenant general (Obergruppenführer) ...

When I first started editing, I had the same reaction, as in "nobody knows what this is, let alone can pronounce it". But my perspective on this changed after I came across this passage in the preface to Hitler's Bandit Hunters by Phillip W. Blood:

• "Another sensitive issue among scholars concerns the use of SS ranks and titles. Readers might be surprised to find that German titles, especially those of the SS, are kept in their original form, whereas the German armed forces are cited in their English equivalent. (...) The SS organisation was judged criminal in 1946, but since then, scholars have tended to refer to them as "SS-Generals", "SS-Colonels", etc. This has aided the social rehabilitation if former SS men. Yet the SS ranks were purely political and symbolic of the faith the Nazis had in the "leadership principle". The translation into "group-leader", so brazenly political, has not military comparison.

"During the war, the SS adopted the term Waffen-SS, denoting armed-SS, and by 1944, most SS personnel came under this branch of the service. (...) Some authors have unwisely assumed that this differentiated the SS between soldiers with a purely military role and the political soldiers. In the same remit, across all the years of research, no examples were found of SS officers refusing to participate in crimes. Likewise, no evidence was found of a refusal to carry out criminal orders.

"The SS officers discussed here did not decline medals and baubles for mass slaughter. In fact, they embellished their performance in security reports for material reward. When the war was over and the members of the SS faced judgement, this odious group of men proved both dishonest and cowardly in the denial of their deeds. This book, therefore, does not rehabilitate criminals and sets out to place the SS ranks and recipients within their criminal structures."

With that in mind, i don't think that calling B-Z a "Leutenant Colonel" is the best approach, as this normalises his position by putting it into a military context. (An example of this can be found on B-Z's Talk page, where it was suggested that Nazi propaganda may have been referring to "bravery in combat against armed fighters of the Home Army: link). Considering that AK lost 15,000 troops KIA, while 150,000 to 200,000 civilians were killed, B-Z received the Knight's Cross 90% for atrocities, and 10% for "successful military leadership". (I'm pretty sure that "extreme battlefield bravery" was not involved, as it's hard to imagine a high-ranking SS figure to be personally storming barricades).

In any case, my suggestion would be one of the following:

• ...a German high-ranking SS official (Obergruppenführer) ...
• ...a German high-ranking SS official...

I prefer the latter option, and using the rank in the body of the article. That would streamline the lead, as the readers at this point probably do not care about the exact rank the subject held. What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you K.e. that the SS rank should be retained to denote the separation and then military equivalent or translation of said rank in parentheses. It is vague and not a correct translation to just say "high-ranking SS official" without noting his proper rank somewhere and in the body of the article for this person's bio/article is okay; for others I would say not so; depending on who it is; on a case review. This guy was not a military man to be sure, but he obtained a rank in a paramilitary organization which should be noted correctly as it is in all RS books on the subject in some section. Carlotm, that does not take away for the fact he was a murderer and war criminal, that he clearly was. Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As a German native speaker I might add that hardly any German is familiar with SS ranks, i.e. a German common reader would not know, what "Obergruppenführer" meant, except, probably, figure that it has something to do with the SS. I would think that even most historians of the Nazi era would have to look up the exact ranks. The same holds true with the SA ranks. Since their inception both SA and SS used their own nomenclature. Some nowadays use the term "SS-officer" (SS-Offizier) to suggest, as historian Jens Westemeier suspected, that a Waffen-SS Führer and an officer of the Wehrmacht were about the same, as if the Waffen-SS was somehow the same as or even the fourth branch of the Wehrmacht. But since 1940 ranks from Brigade- to Obergruppenführer got an "General -major/leutnant/oberst der Waffen-SS" added to it. Thus to speak of such an SS-Führer as SS-General would be historically correct. You may note that Philip W. Blood is not really up to the intricacies of the SS organization and a little contradictory at that. Anyway, in the case of Bach-Zelewski it means that he was "SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS und der Polizei". He was not a lieutenant general, though. I don't want to go into details of Himmler's effort to merge SS and police. Suffice to say, that there's more to it than just "linguistical abstrusities". Besides, about every Category:SS ranks has its own article that can be linked to. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I am unable to agree with your, and your quoted author, way of thinking. I would, if it was about an university paper. Not here on an encyclopedia, a very popular one, being free and on the web. On Wiki I feel compelled to offer an acceptable English word whatever we may write for, and whatever language we may try to translate from. I cannot believe English isn't up to the challenge. Every time an SS rank is mentioned it should in English followed by the German word under bracket and Wiki-linked to the page where "the intricacies of the SS organization" are, (hopefully) rightly explained. And, if Bach-Z "was not a lieutenant general", what was he? Please give me a word, whit which all the bio pages on Obergruppenführer personages will be updated.

Of your two propositions, the first is out of the question. It is quite improper to pair a precise German term with a generic English one. The second proposal may be acceptable when it comes to unburden the lede. The question though does not go away; body and infobox have plenty of instances where the German word still requires a possibly correct English explanation, as I said, English first and German under bracket. This is how scholars act when English and foreign pair of terms are not exactly equivalent.

The question may be considered also from another perspective. There is a sub-culture imbued with signs, terminologies, nomenclatures, uniforms, and various paraphernalia of Nazi era, which is quite present even in Wkipedia and is partly responsible for the celebratory, and if not celebratory, surely propagandistic and hagiographic look many pages on Nazism have. Flags, symbols, rank insignia are over-present, particularly in infoboxes and templates, where often their over-dimension disrupts the normal leading of the text. German SS ranks, as other sets of terms with their totemic value, also belong to this sub-culture which we ought not to perpetuate. Carlotm (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Assayer states the issue well as to the fact there is more to it than just a simple translation to English when writing as to Allgemeine SS, Waffen-SS and even police ranks. As a further example, was the subject of the bio article a Gruppenführer, only in the Allgemeine SS (General SS) or a Gruppenführer in the Waffen-SS? There is a difference and this is an encyclopedia; we try to state things as accuracy as possible per the RS sources in a WP:NPOV way. This project is a joint effort. There is no conspiracy going on here for the long term military history editors (I am not talking about pov or fringe pushes which once founded out are reverted); I am sure there are things each of us have our own opinions on, but our opinions are not what matters; that is WP:OR. It is best to state the SS rank in German where mentioned with a link to the article on same. It can be confusing to the readers and wrong information can be given if there is not uniformity in presentation and description for the general reader, per the RS sources. Even when you know the subject it takes time to understand the different nuances. The Germans during this timeframe were masters of "overblown bureaucracy" and "complexity" as one historian noted. Not to mention one needs consensus for such changes in the end. Kierzek (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this as well, and (specific to the leads) my suggestion would be:

• high-ranking (mid-ranking, etc) official in the Allgemeine-SS (or perhaps simply SS?)...
• high-ranking (mid-ranking, etc) commander in the Waffen-SS...

I think this would de-clutter the lead, by reducing foreign language terms, which I always find to be getting in the way when you are first trying to get into an article. For the bodies of the article, I think that either blue-linking the rank once, or blue linking + translation would work. Translations are offered in this table: SS ranks. @Kierzek and Carlotm: what do you gentlemen think? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, its the old, changing out one problem for another. Part of the problem is for General level ranks, as stated above, the one rank in the Allgemeine-SS is not the same as in the Waffen-SS in comparison to German Army ranks; I wont go into comparison to police or other countries military ranks (can just cause more problems). We have talked about that.

But here is another problem, some SS members held rank in the Allgemeine-SS and at the same time held rank in the Waffen-SS; said ranks were not always at the same level. So, you could have an officer at the rank of Standartenführer (full colonel) in the general SS and he may only be a Obersturmbannführer (lieutenant colonel) in the Waffen-SS, at the same time. Allgemeine-SS, one could argue is a para-military rank, but Waffen-SS was a military rank (even if they were National Socialist soldiers and had many war criminals in their ranks). As I said, it can get complicated and confusing for general readers, etc. So, lay it out for them.

For Allgemeine SS members only, stating they were "a high-ranking (mid-ranking, etc) SS official" (or could say instead, "member of the SS") in the lede is not how I would do it or have done it, without a little more information, but will go with consensus, if that is how it goes. For Waffen-SS members only, I would say, if I have to chose, "high-ranking (mid-ranking, etc) commander in the Waffen-SS". If they had ranks in both or ranks in the SS and police, that should be stated as such. Well some food for thought. I am going home; been at work since 8:00 am today. Kierzek (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I have the feeling that things are more complex than I thought they were, as the two reverts I had been subjected to by Kierzek may suggest (RSHA and SD). I was reverted because there was "no consensus to change RS source used terms". If Kierzek says so, I am sure there are authors, who used the German terms "Inland-SD" and "Ausland-SD". Nevertheless others preferred "SD (inland)"" (Rupert Butler's "The Gestapo: a History..."), and in a recent translation of Peter Longerich's "Heinrich Himmler: a Life", well cured, I suppose, by Oxford University Press, one can see a totally different approach:

• p 394 "the SD Foreign Department"
• p 165 "the SD [...] three operational departments - Home, Foreign, and Freemasons"
• p 393 "that the Foreign Organization would continue to provide intelligence for the SD"
• p 394 "the head of the SD Foreign Department,"
• p 470 "SD Home Affairs (III), the SD's foreign intelligence service (VI)..."
• p 471 "Office III (SD Home Affairs) under Otto Ohlendorf" and "The SD Home Affairs Office"
• p 471 "Office VI (SD Foreign Affairs)" and "the foreign department of the SD"
• p 505 "Jost's SD foreign department"
• p 507 "of the SD's foreign department"
• p 681 "to the SD's foreign department in the RSHA"
• p 690 "the SD's foreign department"
• p 212 n27 "the SD Foreign Department"
• p 188 "The SD Domestic Affairs Department" and "the [SD]] Foreign Department"

I have dwelt here to show the lay way of dealing with a translation process. Not an acquiescence to the supposed superiority of another language explanatory power but the plain search of the right English word, which can even change with context.

Ian Kershaw in his "Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris" used the same approach when dealing with a different SD department: "...key department - the SD's 'Jewish Desk' in Berlin...".

I never thought possible a reversion for removing these two German expressions, which really have no special nuances, nor confusing or complicate meanings. They are what they are: SD Domestic branch, SD Home Affairs, SD Domestic Affairs Department, SD Foreign branch, SD Foreign Department, SD Foreign Organization, SD Foreign Affairs, you choose. Why the call to RS? It is just a question of English language. If people are so rigid in a case like this then we have to succumb and let Nazi terminologies rage through en:Wiki pages for no good reasons.

Back to your question. I agree with your suggestions regarding the lede, especially when an infobox is present nearby, with its "rank" tag where all the possible subtleties can be written down. "High-ranking (mid-ranking, etc) SS official" , or simply "SS member" depending on context, and "high-ranking (mid-ranking, etc) commander in the Waffen-SS" are fine to me.

In the body, though, I don't see why primacy should be given to the German term. Instead of, say, "Standartenführer (full colonel)" I see "SS full colonel (Standartenführer)" as the right way of expressing things in an English context. I would also remove from the infobox any rank wording but in the "rank" tag, and I see you are here on the same page. The same could be done, more often than not, in the body and captions, when the rank does not add much to a person's history. Anyway, more can be ascertained through the Wlink to the bio page almost all these personages have. If the rank is preferable to be present, do it once, don't repeat it ad nauseam. Similarly I would remove from the infobox also the collar insignia image, being that too present in the Wlinked rank page. Carlotm (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Carlotm: I wouldn't describe Standartenführer as a "full colonel", for reasons I outlined above, as it "normalises" such ranks (although I've seen this treatment, I think in the English translation of the Germany and the Second World War. If it were up to me, I would minimise the use of ranks to begin with, i.e. this "person was promoted to X, and then 6 months later to Y, and then to Z" looks cluttered. When I c/e articles, I generally consider this to be "intricate detail" as it's much more relevant to note what command they had. I may say, "this person achieve Z rank by __ year" skipping the middle ranks, especially if they are junior. I feel that's in the spirit of Wikipedia's summary style, and is also consistent with how biographical sketches are presented in English-language historiography. For SS ranks, if translation is offered, I'd go with the actual translation from the link I offered above: [Original German lang SS rank] (Senior Group Leader) or whatever it is.

On the SD discussion, I think it may be best to move it to the article's Talk page, for wider input. I may look at it, as the topics of language and historiography are of interest to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact I attached an "SS" in front of "full colonel". Carlotm (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I have explained some of the problems so I wont repeat myself. Also, as you even show Carlotm, English translations are not always the same or written the same and they become longwinded to say the least; causing un-needed verbiage and even confusion for readers. And I only wrote "full colonel" above to be clear on what SS rank was being used as an example. As for putting rank in the info box that should remain as it is a historical fact and customary per consensus.

I have agreed with K.e. as to the collar rank tab being removed, so at this point that is a non-issue. The German term for ranks and offices should be presented first as it is a foreign word and the English translation follows; it is not an English word or a commonly used German word in English publication which everyone basically knows, such as Luftwaffe or Waffen-SS. BTW-I could write examples from RS sources which follow this presentation but do not see the need at this point. One can also look at B rated, GA rated and A rated articles written and vetted per consensus as to my points. Kierzek (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Categorization of SS Skanderbeg

In the page you are referring to, the term "Albanian" means the ethnicity, not the citizenship. For most nations ethnicity and citizenship are equivalent, but not for some others like Albanians or Kurdish. Albanians (in the ethnical sense) lived in different countries, such as Albania, Greece or Yugoslavia. It is wrong to classify Yugoslavian citizens of Albanian ethnicity/descent as affiliated to the Republic of Albania. Arguments based on "it has the word "Albanian" in the description" are uninformed. 31.18.251.226 (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a source that discusses this nuance? Hale lists this unit under Albania:

• Hale, Christopher (2011). Hitler's Foreign Executioners: Europe's Dirty Secret. The History Press. ISBN 978-0-7524-5974-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

K.e.coffman (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

i) The SS Skanderbeg members were residents of Kosovo during WW2. (sources found on article) ii) Kosovo was officially part of Yugoslavia, including WW2. (trivial historical fact) iii) People living in Yugoslavia are Yugoslavian citizens. (by virtue of the Yugoslavian constitution and trivial citizenship definition).

I find it hard to follow any discussion on the contrary, as this is such a basic know-how on WW2 and Balkans' history. I do not know if Hale categorized the group ethnically or by citizenship. If he did so ethnically, then he should have categorized all other groups by ethnicity. On the other hand, the other groups of the article are categorized by citizenship and country, not heritage of members, as such, it is the only meaningful interpretation to list the group as Yugoslavian.31.18.251.226 (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The article on the "division" is at featured article status and the lede states in part: "The division was developed around the nucleus of an ethnic Albanian battalion which had briefly seen combat against the Yugoslav Partisans in eastern Bosnia as part of the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian). Composed of Muslim Albanians with mostly German and Yugoslav Volksdeutsche (ethnic German) officers and non-commissioned officers, it was given the title Skanderbeg after medieval Albanian lord George Kastrioti Skanderbeg, who defended the region of Albania against the Ottoman Empire for more than two decades in the 15th century." Kierzek (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Your statement does not contradict what I wrote above. The section you referred to (similarly to the full spectrum of sources) identify the members as ethnic Albanians of Kosovo (Yugoslavia), not the Republic of Albania. Kosovo was a region of Yugoslavia during WW2 and Kosovo Albanians were Yugoslavian citizens. They have no relation to the Republic of Albania. Ethnic Albanians lived in several countries outside Republic of Albania, such as: Kosovo in Yugoslavia, Chameria in Greece, Ulcinj in Montenegro, Skopje-Gostivar-Tetovo in Macedonia, etc ... To give a synthetic analogy, a particular US-based organization, whose members are US citizens of ethnic Irish roots, is not listed under the Republic of Ireland. As a result, since SS groups of the article are categorized by the country they reside to (not ethnicity/heritage of members), SS Skanderbeg is a Yugoslavian group. 31.18.251.226 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following, as Yugoslavia as a country did not exist during WWII; the country was partitioned between various entities. World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs#Albanian_role_and_Kosovo states: "During World War II, with the fall of Yugoslavia in 1941, the Italians placed the land inhabited by ethnic Albanians under the jurisdiction of an Albanian quisling government, including Kosovo". (?) With the Italian exit from the war in 1943, the territory came under German control; please see Albanian Kingdom (1943–44), which links off to 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian). Belgium was also an occupied country, but this does not prevent it from appearing on the list: Waffen-SS_foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts#Belgium. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Promotional & uncited content

Hello, I'm Garchy. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Cohesity without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Removal of cited material without providing a reason (this does not fit WP:PROMO Garchy (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No disrespect intended with the templating - just wanted to let you know I reverted an edit of yours that I considered a little too bold - feel free to rewrite or reword that section, but removing a neutral toned and heavily referenced section seems a little too much to me. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Garchy: I've noted a request here: Talk:Nutanix#WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Part 2: Nutanix

Please note - removal of WP:PROMO material is fine, but removal of cited content (numerous times you have reverted this) is against Wikipedia policy. Please be civil, and remember that your viewpoint is not the only one on Wikipedia. I have been working hard to find a middle ground with you, but you have reverted pertinent information cited to reliable third party sources (the mention of Cohesity as well as IPO information that is neutral). Please be aware of your actions and the content you are removing - after your edits have been reverted it's best to have a conversation on the talk page about it - "conversation" implying listening to the other side and being aware of their issues (meaning not just doing the same reverts over and over again, which borders on edit warring). Garchy (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI Nutanix

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Garchy (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI close

Permalink. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI close as "wrong area", not conflict resolved. Garchy (talk)

• Comment: I found it somewhat odd that an experienced editor's first step to a content conflict resolution would be ANI. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Embarrassing to admit, but yes, it was a mistake (as I can make them from time to time)... I was looking for this - I guess it's a positive that I've never been involved with ANI (and therefore made the mistake of filing there), but I think it's water under the bridge at this point. Garchy (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Prokhorovka/archive1

As a current active editor of the article, I think you might want to participate in the FA nomination. There haven't been any comments yet though. EyeTruth (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Jared Taylor

could you please go to the talk page and respond there, instead of just blindly reverting my edit? simply stating that you haven't seen the discussion on the talk page, isn't a very contructive way to address this issue. actually, in my opinion it should be a good reason for you not to change the article itself.-- mike.

i have written another reply in the talk page. -- mike.

I responded at Talk:Jared_Taylor#a_magazine_often_described_as_a_white_supremacist_publication.. Regards, K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

User name

Hi K.e.coffman,

I'm sorry if the username caused offense. I've used this username for a good while without any issues being raised. Anyways I'll consider changing it.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Military aircraft accidents

Thank you for directing my attention to the article about Nazi "history". This makes your edit much more understandable. C. Mark Sublette

@Mark Sublette: I believe you are referring to this edit. Yes, one finds Franz Kurowski in strange places : -) . K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeking your opinion

Hello,

I came across this page - List of Gameloft games. It seems to be a huge list, some or much of it unsourced and some red links. To me this is pure advertising and it may be appropriate to take it to AfD - or it may not be appropriate. There must be some other way to discuss this. So, I guess I will open a discussion on the article talk page. I am hoping you will chime in. And I am hoping anyone else who reads this and is interested will also chime in. Thanks in advance.

Please see Talk:List of Gameloft games. Right now it is the only discussion on the talk page. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: I left a note on the Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Tripoto

Hey K.e.coffman. FYI, Tripoto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is back by request of Srvkumar09. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@JJMC89: FYI, the article was deleted at a subsequent AfD. Hope we saw the last of it :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Alfred Ingemar Berndt

You're welcome. Schmausschmaus (talk)

@Schmausschmaus: Thank you for creating the article -- I came across the subject while working on the Rommel myth, and it looked like Berndt was a key part of the propaganda setup, so it's nice to have an article on him. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I enjoyed your Rommel Myth article!Schmausschmaus (talk)

Farzad Esmaili

Hi, the "Air Defense Base" and "Air Defense Force" is same thing but there are different translation; for example Tehran times used "Air Defense Base" but Japan Times used "Air Defense Force". tanks you.--Reza Amper (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Nasuni

Thank you very much for your edits on the article. I will continue to be on the lookout for good links. (talk) 28 November 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Redirections

Hello, I saw you recently redirected Niels Bätge on the assumption that no sources could be found to confirm his notability, but I found two that reference him extensively without much trouble. This calls into question the due diligence you have performed on the numerous other articles you have been redirecting. Perhaps it would be best for you to take these to AfD so others can more easily check your work. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NYX Cosmetics

I went over the article in question, and sourced all statements to apparently reliable sources, while removing anything that sounded promotional. I would appreciate it if you would take another look at the article. Thanks! Edison (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)