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

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

Your GA nomination of Arthur Nebe[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arthur Nebe 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: looking forward to the review! K.e.coffman (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
K.e., I will help out with this one, if needed. Kierzek (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you have probably seen, the GA reviewer will be away for a short time. No problem, it will get done after he returns. Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, its back on; I did some requested ce work; have a look at it and the GAR when you have time. Kierzek (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Willy Cohn has been accepted[edit]

Willy Cohn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 02:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SwisterTwister: wow, that was fast -- thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Arthur Nebe[edit]

The article Arthur Nebe you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arthur Nebe for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, on this GA. Kierzek (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kierzek: Thanks for the suggestion to nominate it -- it was kind of cool to see this article reach GA as this was one of the first articles that I edited. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rommel myth[edit]

Hi, K.e., hope all's well. I recently took a look at the Rommel myth article, and was wondering about citation 166, which is sourced to Mitcham 2007 - except there are two books by Mitcham from 2007. Which one does this refer to? Also, I'm working on the copyedit you requested, Rommel: The Desert Fox. Thanks, GABgab 17:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the latter article, the Muggeridge quote sounds a little off when it says "is in no wise incompatible." Was this meant to read, "is in no way incompatible"? Thanks, GABgab 16:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralizationsAreBad: Thank you; I moved the Mitcham query to the Talk page of the Rommel myth & pinged the contributor who I believe added this content.
On the second point, I double checked with the Major article an it's indeed "no wise incompatible". This seems to be an outdated / "high English" (?) turn of phrase, as I'm seeing instances of this elsewhere, such as in God, the Creator and Lord of All, Volume 2. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of wiki.de articles[edit]

If you have the language skills, it would be great if you could translate some of the German articles on historians like Boog into English. Even a basic start-class article would be useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: I’ve beaten you to it; see Horst Boog. :-) . I’ve recently started on a “project” of adding articles on the German historians who were authors of Germany and the Second World War: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Authors of Germany and the Second World War.
I usually use a combination of de.wiki article (where available) and English-language sources, which so far all of them have had. If you’re interested, I’d welcome additional participants, especially to expand the articles, as more sources probably exist. This template shows all the authors:
K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. Definitely a worthwhile project. I have a couple of books that those guys have written or contributed to, but I'm not sure what material is in their contributor's bios that isn't already in the bios in GatSWW. I'd suggest filling out their publications list via OCLC necessary. I have a vague memory that the conference proceedings were published in English with Boog as the editor in the late 1980s. I cleaned up the Boog article a little for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Book categories[edit]

K.e.coffman, you are no longer a rookie editor and yet you seem to still be unfamiliar with placing categories in the articles you create.

I came across an article on a book called The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality. It was uncategorized, despite fitting in several categories:

Please familiarize yourself with categories relative to books. Uncategorized articles are typically difficult to locate and can be rendered invisible to readers. Dimadick (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: Thanks for the pointers. I've only done a few articles on books specifically, so not quite a routine yet. I will keep this in mind. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RSN posting[edit]

Hi, K.e.Coffman. RSN is meant to be used for discussing whether a given source is reliable for the content it is being used for, and it works well in that context. As its own instructions indicate, it's not really meant for drawing attention to other discussions going on. In cases like yours, it's better to just ask for opinions on whatever sources concern you and mention them at the FLC once you have some responses. Thanks for removing the section. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what does A7 material mean? Calli2010 (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page[edit]

Hi. You might want to look at the talk page section two segments above yours on Robsinden's page, as it is related and you may want to move your comments there. There is a discussion on the topic now occurring, which is linked at the end of that segment. I don't think this is canvassing because I would have left this note on his talk page as a reply, but he's removed my last two reply comments. Randy Kryn 03:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: Thank you for letting me know -- indeed this was timely! K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Aces[edit]

Hi there: I object to your continually reverting my edits to "Panzer ace" in popular culture which originally seemed to me to give prominence to Michael Wittmann and the Waffen-SS. Particularly as Wittmann was not the highest-scoring "Tiger Ace". The highest scoring "Tiger Ace" was Kurt Knispel of the Heer and the highest-scoring Waffen SS ace was Martin Schroif not Wittmann. As far as I know Bob Carruther’s book "Tiger I in Combat" is a respectable source for the list of "Tiger Aces". Hugo999 (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugo999: Thank you for your message. I moved the comment to the article Talk page and responded there: Talk:"Panzer_ace"_in_popular_culture#Recent_edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Wehrmachtbericht[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wehrmachtbericht 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting Hitler[edit]

Came across this page and cleaned it up after its creation. Due to its association with conspiracy theories related to the late A. Hitler, I'm assuming it might be something you want to put on your watchlist/you might know ways to improve the article beyond the stub I created to save it from G11. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a related topic, I just needed to edit the Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death to remove material claiming that the almost universally accepted facts around Hitler's death are merely a "majority view". Facepalm Facepalm Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, silly facts and their preventing us from imagining Hitler and his beloved German shepherd enjoying a Malbec together in Argentina. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought it was a post about a video game :-). I'll add both to my watchlist. BTW, this article appears to be part of the conspiracy cluster: Gustav Weler, as it's citing from The Grey Wolf book. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good work guys. I have worked to help keep the "fringe at bay" on the articles such as "Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death" but did not want to get into a protracted edit war over it; Hitler's death and the new "well spring" of books, websites and TV shows (thanks History Channel) on his so-called escape and survival have made for extra work, unfortunately. Kierzek (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QuiBids.com[edit]

I've reverted your edits to QuiBids.com as they appear to be an effort to whitewash the article by removing useful and sourced information about the subject. If you still have an interest in the subject, the next appropriate step would be to discuss your proposed edits in the article's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rklawton: Thank you for your message. I moved it to the article's Talk page and responded there: Talk:QuiBids.com#Recent_edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks! Rklawton (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates[edit]

Thanks for your discussions concerning featured list candidates but please do not ping me regarding any of my comments there or with any dealings with that project. I will respond to such things as RfC's or other important aspects but not there as long as the current organizational structure is in place. One can not deal with anyone thinking they are above reproach, or their position is above reproach, or that uses a blanket "wall of text" comment to summarily dismiss other comments. I have seen at least three editors criticism dismissed. While you are apparently flagged as a trouble maker, that is not a reason to just dismiss your comments and certainly not valid concerns of others, just to justify a promotion. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm) was not ready to be promoted, even after improvements that I suggested, that are in accordance to guidelines.
List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (E) was promoted to A-class with links that direct back to the same article and a ton of red links. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) has the same redirect issues just not the red link problems. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C) (both featured lists) have some of the same issues. These are issues dealt with by the Manual of Style as being inappropriate. While possibly expected of a C-class or below, not B-class, and most certainly not A-class or above. Many of the others of the list are rated at A-class with some of the same issues. This means that all of these are "exceptions to the rule", or project self-promoted, in light of policies and guidelines. That does not help this encyclopedia one bit. I do have to give credit to the nominator for making edits that I suggested.
The entire Notes section of "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)", including Listed by Fellgiebel but disputed by Scherzer as well as Discrepancies in sources, might be with well intentions but is a joke. These concerns could be dealt with in prose without calling attention to the fact that the two main sources have serious flaws that can not apparently be corroborated with any other sources. That is just crazy to advance that an article is the best-of-the-best with such issues, but that has become the project consensus. It is apparently ludicrous that anyone would suggest that broad Wikipedia consensus over-rides local or project consensus. I guess if it appears to make Wikipedia look better (to someone or the world) then let's curve the "rules" and promote as many as we can. I don't see it as enhancing Wikipedia but what do I know.
I have been around a pretty good while, with what I consider a good editing record, and I have never had to resort to this but I do not want any involvement concerning that project. I will just stop editing before I deal with such an ass. Of course in some circumstances that seems to be a preferable option within what some might consider a cabal.
For the record, while I respect your comments, I do not necessarily support all of them, as I have not looked at any, other than the featured list nomination comments on "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients, Ba–Bm, and have not researched your rationale, but I do agree about the sources, and the over-excessive amount of notes. I looked at some others and I also agree with "I do not see this list representing Wikipedia's very best work due to POV issues and excessive amount of detail based on two sources with each having its own challenges.", although I was not allowed any participation there to form any possible change of mind, because of the force-fed premature closing. Well hell, I guess I agree with some others listed there and also comments from another editor that was also summarily dismissed. I suppose some good news is that at a point other editors will eventually join in and then improvements can be sought on the basis of Wikipedia enhancement and not some other agenda. Have a nice day, Otr500 (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2017/January&oldid=1089617158"