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

Plata O Plomo Fat Joe and Remy Ma album

Hi could you please explain your revert of the article Plata O Plomo (Fat Joe and Remy Ma album) As it stands, the background is incorrect as the album is in reference to the Netflix series Narcos the reference given on the page does not relate to the album itself. Fat Joe has in interviews leading up to the album's release mentioned the Narcos series in relation to the album. Furthermore, the information I provided serves as actual background to how the album was brought about. For collaboration album examples see Watch the Throne, Distant Relatives, Collision Course (album) I'd imagine it'd be useful for a reader to know considering Fat Joe and Remy Ma's past differences this album was never likely to happen at one point. I do agree with the removal of the promotion section though as an artist talking about their own album there is obviously going to be a bias and does not benefit the reader of the page. Thanks Smush123 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Smush123: I had posted about the edit here: Talk:Plata_O_Plomo_(Fat_Joe_and_Remy_Ma_album)#YouTube used as source. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Günther Zaag

Hey I saw Günther Zaag during March Madness, and I thought it might lack notability, but I'm not as learned in what awards have been decided to make a person notable, could you advise? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Thanks, definitely nn; I nominated it for PROD. If you come across articles by the same article creator, there's about 80% chance that they are on non notable subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

your translation request M. Wittmann

Der Historiker Sönke Neitzel bezeichnet Wittmann als den „angeblich erfolgreichsten Panzerkommandanten des Zweiten Weltkrieges“ und konstatiert einen „Heldenkult um Wittmann“, der in kaum einem populären Buch über die Waffen-SS fehle. Laut Neitzel sind „Erfolgszahlen von hochdekorierten Panzerkommandanten […] mit einer gewissen Vorsicht zu behandeln“, da es sich im „Kampfgetümmel“ kaum zuverlässig ermitteln lasse, wer wie viele Panzer abgeschossen habe.

The historian Sönke Neitzel calls Wittmann "allegedly the most successful tank commander of the Second World War" and states a "heroic cult around Wittmann", which is hardly missing in a popular book on the Waffen-SS. According to Neitzel, "success numbers of highly decorated (means: many badges and medals) tank commanders [...] have to be treated with a certain caution", since in the "battle turmoil" it is hardly reliably to determine who shot as many tanks.

(german articles about e.g. german heroes of ww 2 u usually can forget. they are stupid and try always to humiliate them...) 106.76.56.66 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

User: Bossanoven

FYI - I saw you gave this user/editor notice as to a cat, but in this case you should know this user/editor was a sock banned quite some time ago. He was pretty wild on making new cats, I recall. Kierzek (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kierzek: I use Twinkle for AfD and PROD nominations; the tool notifies page creators automatically. But I agree, the editor's history is somewhat odd. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Soldiers' notability

Hi K.e.coffman, in response to your mail - feel free to ping or contact me in cases of doubt about notability regarding German soldiers. Please be aware, however, that I am not a regular contributor to the English Wikipedia project and do not want to get involved in lengthy arguments about its notability criteria as such. That is something for the local crowd to decide on. I do absolutely share your concern about improper characterization of German WWII soldiers on enWP, although I mostly write biographies about foreign nationals on deWP myself (being a German, as you may have guessed). Cheers, Prüm (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Prüm: Thank you for your message. The overall notability of the Knight's Cross winners (or lack thereof) have already been sufficiently established via this discussion at Notability (people): Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners.

It's been largely agreed that the award by itself is insufficient for notability; the subjects need to meet either other criteria of WP:SOLDIER (commanded a division or equivalent, held a general's rank or equivalent, etc) and / or GNG. But I do have questions about individual notability of those redirects that have been challenged, such as Erich Handke or Niels Bätge. What would your thought be on the notability of these subjects? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither meets the criteria to warrant an individual article, in my opinion. With Bätge, one could argue that he commanded a flotilla and participated in a major military operation in this role. But on the other hand, he is not even mentioned in the corresponding article, and his only other claim to fame seems to be his sinking of a mock carrier… Both wouldn't survive a deletion request in the German Wikipedia, which has similar, though slightly more strict, notability criteria. I think redirects would be in order in both cases. Prüm (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Thanks for closing a few discussions at CfD. Please note the instructions under Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Administrator_instructions#Process, esp. 6.1: If the decision is Delete, Merge, or Rename: (...) If you are a non-admin, (...) please do not close discussions that require any of the above 3 actions unless you are prepared to implement them manually, or an admin has agreed to help you.

In other words, it is up to the closer to execute the closing decision.

Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: I've seen other non-admin closures where a speedy deletion tag was placed on the page afterwards with the link to the XfD. If this is not a correct procedure, I can undo my closes. Please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, per WP:G6. Any admin can then "push the delete button" for real, provided that you've emptied the category beforehand. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: I've properly closed / emptied the first three; there were too many "fictional dandies" to empty manually, so I just undid the close. I think things are in order now, correct? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good! Thanks again. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced material at Kurt Knispel

Your recent editing history at Kurt Knispel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk • contribs) 03:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@DbivansMCMLXXXVI: I responded at Talk:Kurt_Knispel#Unsourced_material. Let's continue the discussion there. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Kurt Knispel

I have added references to the article on Kurt Knispel. In the future please simply request references instead of mass culling of entire articles. We cannot provide sources if the section in question is completely removed along with the tags.

Also, its often easier to do a quick google books search and find a reliable source than it is to delete the information. Google books often allows free access to highly regarded sources.

DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm moving this discussion to Talk:Kurt_Knispel#Unsourced_material. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Nazism sidebar

Because of a multiplicity of new options, I've withdrawn the RfC you participated in and replaced it with this one Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi K.e.coffman, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on being granted this right. It is not to be taken lightly and I consider it to be an honor for an editor to receive. Kierzek (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Super Awesome User Page

I was drawn here as you participated in an article for deletion that I also contributed to (pretty hopelessly, looking to stretch policy to keep. As you reasoned, it will probably be deleted). In any case, I just spent half an hour browsing your user page. In the past I had been bothered by how WWII articles seemed to praise the German side, for skill, valor, etc, etc, but I had no idea of the extent. I am utterly impressed, and I thank you for improving Wikipedia. Jd2718 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jd2718: Thank your for your comment! I hope you enjoyed. I usually get "vandalism, "obstructionism", "we've been through this before", etc, so it was nice to get this message. Could you do me a favor and give your permission to change the section heading to "Super awesome user page"? :-) I'll then add it to the "Awards and kudos" section on my user page. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Feel free, you have my permission. Jd2718 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Overwriting redirects

FYI, anyone who is autoconfirmed can overwrite a redirect with one line in its edit history pointing to the article that is being moved. It'll record G6 in the deletion log and the move will be done quite simply. You only need to go to WP:RM/TR if it has multiple revisions or if it is pointing to an article other than the one being moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Police Regiment articles

I note in Police Regiment Centre and Police Regiment South you have used both m/d/y and d/m/y. I did not change to one or the other since you wrote the new articles and should decide same. Kierzek (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kierzek: Thanks, I generally try to follow D/M/Y, but sometimes don't pay attention to this as the sources may use different formatting. I think I've fixed this now on the police regiment articles. Feel free to fix this up whenever you see the dates following different formats. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Widr: Thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, K.e.coffman. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Format for appendices

Having just reviewed a bunch of your recent articles, I noticed that the formatting of your appendices didn't comply with MOS:APPENDIX because you used a semi-colon to create some of the headers. This cannot be read by screen readers for visually impaired readers and you should replace them with equals signs to create the appropriate-level headers.

BTW, what's your opinion of the Hartmann book? At what level is he focused?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: thanks, noted. By Hartmann's book, do you mean Barbarossa? Or another one? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have specified, the Barbarossa book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Hartmann's Barbarossa is a very short book, and contrary to the title, it covers the entire German-Soviet war of 1941-45. So by it's nature it's very high level. But if someone wanted an introduction to the Eastern Front, I'd say that would be an excellent choice, as it explains how and why the conflict became what it was. I agreed with some of the criticisms that I included in Hartmann's article, but other than that, it's great as a concise intro.

For Operation Barbarossa proper, I'd recommend Geoffrey P. Megargee, for the confluences of military and ideological factors:

• Megargee, Geoffrey P. (2007). War of Annihilation: Combat and Genocide on the Eastern Front, 1941. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-4482-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

David Stahel has a good operational history, down to the divisional level:

• Stahel, David (2009). Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-76847-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the mini-reviews. I've got both Stahel and Megargee, although I haven't read the latter yet.

Re: PROD of Traci Takes Tokyo

Hello. I had to remove the PROD tag on Traci Takes Tokyo because a PROD was contested in 2014. I have no opinion yet about notability if it goes to AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)