User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/October

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

Thank you ...[edit]

... for improving article quality in September! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Römer[edit]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Felix Römer has been completed.

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

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: thank you. I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles i want to add information to appear to involve you[edit]

Hello, You might remember me from last year when i first got into wikipedia. After a certain family incident i'm now back to contribute to wikipedia. Now i made a list of articles i either want to add additional information or pictures/documents to to make the article more informative and of course objective. One thing i noticed is that in most of those articles talk pages you seem to be active on, and in most of them it seems like there are problems between you and another contributor. The most recent one i just came across while checking personalities i can add a lot of information or pictures to is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G%C3%BCnther_Freiherr_von_Maltzahn Now i want to make wikipedia a more neutral place that on one hand contains all of the facts but at the same time also stays away from bias. You and me both can accept that we have a natural bias. As you are of jewish heritage and maybe even have victims of WW2 war crimes among your family while i'm of german heritage and have family that were heavily involved in the 3rd Reich (which is why i have a lot to contribute while leaving out the personal items because of their bias.) I'd like to have a personal talk with you via e-mail or something similar before i add/edit articles you have been involved in. That way you and me both save time and both can work on creating more neutral but always factual wikipedia articles. Is there an e-mail adress or another way to contact you in private? I'd appreciate it if you'd share it so i can inform you about all of the wikipedia articles you've been involved in that i want to add information to.

Kind regards and thanks in advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChartreuxCat: I prefer to communicate on Wiki. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Hello, that's no problem for me either, as i said i'm also still new here and didn't find a private message system and since i prepared several additions and changes to articles on the topic you have also worked on, i didn't want the both of us to end up filling your Talk page. That said, of course we can also discuss the changes and additions of reliable sources on each topic in the talk section of the topic itself. Also maybe you can help me with one question, some of the sources i'll use are from the german-language only "Institut für Zeitgeschichte (IfZ)" i'm sure you're aware of as well as some other reliable sources that only exist in german. I'm aware that i can use them on english wikipedia but do i have to add a translation for the source in the talk section so non-german-speaking wikipedia editors know what the source says? Obviously i want you and maybe others to check out the german-language sources i will use before i add or change the article to avoid problems. How should i proceed when using german-only sources? Thanks in advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) It's expected that Wikipedia editors will use offline, paywalled, or non-English sources that cannot be easily checked. There is no requirement to provide a translation, but it is good practice to translate and/or post quotes supporting disputed or controversial claims (whilst avoiding the posting of excessive copyrighted text on Wikipedia). See WP:NOENG. Catrìona (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) See above. If you have links to your materials, I would appreciate it if you added them to the WikiProject Germany Library. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Klink[edit]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Ernst Klink has been completed.

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

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: much appreciated! --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SS as "4th branch of the Wehrmacht"[edit]

Hey, saw this, and while it is incorrect to say the SS was a 4th Wehrmacht branch (though to be fair, SS units were under Wehrmacht operational control - often) - as the "regime logic" (similar to some modern Republican Guards or Revolutionay Guards) was that these were a counterforce to the regular army... However, was not the Waffen SS effectively the 4th armed service of Nazi Germany? Icewhiz (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I can tell you is that the WP:RS sources state there is an argument that can be made that the Waffen-SS was a de facto fourth branch, however, it must be remembered that it was never a "serious rival" to the German Army. It never obtained complete "independence of command" (which adds to the criminality of the Wehrmacht); its members were never allowed to be part of, nor promoted to the OKW. It also was under 10% in manpower numbers of the Wehrmacht, even at its peak. Further, it was still, in large part, dependent on the army for heavy weaponry and equipment. Stein, especially cautions the use of (overemphasizing) that fourth branch argument; this because of its use by apologists to support their arguments they were "soldiers like the army". Ironically, when it comes to the German Army, they certainly did not have clean hands, either. Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: As Kierzek points out, it's an apologist narrative put forth by the Waffen-SS propaganda from the likes of HIAG. While on the front lines, Waffen-SS divisions were controlled by the OKW, but while resting and refitting they were subordinated to Kommandostab Reichsführer-SS. SS police & Waffen-SS took the lead on security warfare operations under the 1942 Bandenbekämpfung directive, with Wehrmacht playing a subordinate role.
It appears that this narrative has been partially successful, since you are asking these questions. E.g. the exhalted prose and remarkable juxterpositions I encountered in articles on Waffen-SS units, such as: "...the activities of partisan groups increased all across the area. LSSAH men murdered 49 Jewish refugees..." (User:K.e.coffman#"Ah, partisanen!").
After the successful completion of the military campaign, Himmler envisioned Waffen-SS as the permanent police/military force, if I recall Bernd Wegner's argument correctly. If anything, the Wehrmacht could be viewed as becoming the "combart arm" of the SS as the war progressed, not the other way around. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The (possibly wrong) picture in my mind (based on reading as well as analogs to other regimes) is that the Waffen-SS was a more fanatic&loyal version of the wehrmacht (which itself was dirty and fanatic). People such as Otto Skorzeny (who joined the SS after being rejected for pilot training) or Michael Wittmann were, more or less, full time military. I am not coming at this from viewing the waffen-SS as "clean" - but rather viewing it is a "dirtier" element of the rather "dirty" Nazi military forces.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, re: Michael Wittmann [was] full time military... -- well, let's see. According to his wiki page, Wittmann volunteered for the SS in 1936. The article then, rather euphemistically, discusses that he "participated in the annexation of Austria and the occupation of Sudetenland". I'm pretty sure he was not just "soldiering". He was then on the Eastern Front, where Leibstandarte was notorious for killing POWs outright and participating in massacres. Even compared to the Wehrmacht, which was thoroughly Nazified, Waffen-SS stands out.
The "fourth branch of the Wehrmacht" narrative was strategic because the former Waffen-SS men wanted to attach themselves to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. It survived in Germany until 1990, until the Wehrmacht Exhibition -- in the popular perception of the war, not in academic circles. The myth is still pretty much in operation in the Anglo-American popular culture, as much of my user page demonstrates. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting omission from the Adolf Galland article[edit]

Apparently he was the only person that the Americans blocked from joining the Bundeswehr because of Neo-Nazi sympathies.[1] Catrìona (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: I tried to raise a similar issue here: Talk:Adolf Galland#Tags, but I was not successful, due to the intervention of two MILHIST coordinators who deemed the sources to be reliable and appropriate. You are welcome to open another discussion; sometimes people need to hear the same thing twice. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ernst Klink[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ernst Klink 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 Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Felix Römer[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Felix Römer 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 Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Rattenhuber and the RSD[edit]

K.e. - I remember reading sometime ago about Rattenhuber being in charge of security during the build out of Wolf's Lair and how foreign workers on the site were shot in the name of "security". I looked in my library this past weekend, but cannot find the RS book where I read that now. I wanted to add some RS citing for it. If you have or come across anything in relation to the above, let me know. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kierzek: I found some information in Smersh: Stalin's Secret Weapon, by Vadim Birstein. The book does not list the number of victims, but otherwise confirms RSD's role in the events: [2]. Hope this helps. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Per the index of the book you linked, found the original RS source with numbered pages and added same to the article. Kierzek (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ernst Klink[edit]

The article Ernst Klink you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ernst Klink 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 Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Felix Römer[edit]

The article Felix Römer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Felix Römer 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 Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: Thank you for the reviews. Much appreciated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Max Valentiner[edit]

I reverted a 2008 IP edit which replaced "branded a war criminal" with "listed as a war criminal" at Max Valentiner. List of most successful U-boat commanders had similar language which I also reverted. –dlthewave ☎ 20:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: Thank you; a good one! I added this example to the showcase, in the User:K.e.coffman#Investigative Sub-committee on Abuses of Victor's Justice section. If you come across any others, please let me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rabbithole: [3] [4] [5]. There seems to be a legend of "honorable" "Aces of the Deep" who allowed crews to evacuate to lifeboats and gave directions to the nearest port before destroying the vessel. –dlthewave ☎ 05:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also badassoftheweek.com which was used as a source. –dlthewave ☎ 05:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlthewave: "badassoftheweek.com" is pretty good! K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

Hi K.e.coffman. After reviewing your request at the Afc desk, I have additionally enabled rollback on your account. Happy editing! Lourdes 06:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Strike the earth! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a big deal really. WP:TWINKLE already gives you the "Rollback (Vandal)" option, so it's not much of change. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV: --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. See, I'm not so much an admin as I am a cave dragon and have no knowledge of these things. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV: Anybody can use Twinkle. It's useful for semi-automated edits, such as nominating articles for deletion; welcoming new users; etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, the official "Rollback" is a obtained right; and a fast and easy, through a one clink step, to deal with vandalism. Kierzek (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsidi (talk • contribs)

Permalinks:
--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coloured pictures[edit]

See this discussion: (in Dutch): nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg#Historische foto's: zwart-wit of ingekleurd The Banner talk 18:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Thank you for letting me know; I commented on the thread. FYI, there's a somewhat related discussion on de.wiki: Colorierung historischer NS-Bilder vom Bundesarchiv auf Commons; (permalink). --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read the Dutch (or German) but if you need help with this abomination on English wikipedia, let me know. I'm not one to see Nazis under every bit of furniture, but even I think someone with that user name doing only colorizations of nazi images is a bit of a red flag! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: I compiled the cliff notes from the three discussions, on English, Dutch and German Wikipedias:
English Wikipedia does not seem to be an issue, along with the other two wikis. It was the reaction on Commons that I found surprising, along with people following me to other wikis to reintroduce the fakes into articles. The links to the Commons discussions are included in the "See also" section. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission by Ourielw[edit]


Hi There,

Thanks for your review.

I got your message about the rejection of my page "monday (software)". You wrote "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia" I invested a lot of time to make this page as neutral as possible, including 37 (neutral) references, so I was wondering what else I should do in order to allow the page to be published. Yes, this article is about a commercial company and product, but so are lots of others articles, including companies similar to monday. I actually tried to keep a similar structure and type of content like those pages for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asana_(software), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airtable

I'd really like to have your assistance on how to make it even more neutral to allow it go live.

Thank you for your help! Ourie

l

Ourielw (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ourielw: the article uses non-neutral language, which makes it read like an advertisement / sales brochure. Let's take the lead for example:
... is a team management platform designed to help teams collaborate and build transparency in the workplace.re: "transparency" -- what does this mean exactly? this is not an NGO. The SaaS tool is used by a varied customer base,this is wp:peacock; avoid including startups to Fortune 500 companies, such as Carlsberg Group, Frost & Sullivan, McDonald's, WeWork, and Wix.com.name dropping monday.com can be used by any team peacock working together, from two freelancers collaborating on a project to thousands collaborating across the globe.sales brochure The non-tech segment of monday.com’s user base now consists of more than 70% of their paying accounts.bragging; probably originating from the company itself.
Re: content: generally, reviews help -- what are the product's strengths? what are its weaknesses? Instead of: the company raised an A round; then it raised a B round; then a C round. Here are all of their investors, including their names and here's how much they each invested. Etc. This reads like an investment prospectus. Hope this helps. Lastly, do you happen to be affiliated with the company in any way? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfram Wette[edit]

I copyedited it, but it's my first GOCE copyedit, so if you'd like another editor to look at it, feel free to leave it up on the Req page. Catrìona (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. I made a pass at it, just now and only did some minor ce. Although I have been a member of the GOCE for a long time, I generally just do copy edit work where I see a need or upon request. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona and Kierzek: thank you both. Catrìona, please feel free to mark as "done" in the GOCE queue; I was mostly looking for another set of eyes. This works for me! --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Krüger[edit]

Notice

The article Wilhelm Krüger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It appears that this is a fake article, because that person never existed : he was confused with Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger at the time of his creation. It has just been deleted from French Wikipedia where it had been copied from English Wikipedia. Please see that discussion page : [6]. Best regards. Gkml

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gkml (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gkml: Thank you for letting me know. I agree with the proposed deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bandenbekämpfung[edit]

Hope you are well. Since I had a free couple of hours, I worked on the Bandenbekämpfung page you created. In the process, I deleted a couple things that were not substantiated or not a proper reflection of the original (added by other editors I am sure). Not that I did a lot, but it's enough that a good copy-edit, content review, is in order as I was working very quickly. As you know, my substantial library can be used to great effect in strengthening this page--if I had but more time. Maybe over the holidays or if I get a free moment here or there. Servus --Obenritter (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obenritter: thank you for expanding the article. I actually own Blood's Hitler's Bandit Hunters that you used, and I've been thinking of working on the article since forever. However, I find the book to be a difficult read, both because of the author's writing style and the subject matter. (I've found Westermann's Hitler's Police Battalions to be correspondingly blood-curling in places.) But I'll see if I can get back to it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries brother. I know you are busy fighting Nazi mythologizing all over Wikipedia, which is an honorable task. Yeah Blood's prose is not the easiest to get through, but the book is very informative. I haven't picked up Westerman's work, but based on what I've heard about it I should. Keep up the good fight.--Obenritter (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Obenritter: Yes, Westermann is a good resource. The book has a detailed discussion of the activities of the police battalions in 1941-42 in the Soviet Union, along with 1939-1940 in Poland. There are also chapters on the pre-war history of the Ornungspolizei, to explain the development of its doctrine and organisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Case made. I'll be ordering a copy.--Obenritter (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Felix Römer[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Felix Römer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Turismond (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Göteborg International Biennial for Contemporary Art[edit]


Dear K.e.coffman,

I am very confused by this article being declined citing that it "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia". There is currently an article about the Göteborg International Biennial for Contemporary Art in Swedish (Göteborg Internationella konstbiennal), but there is not one in English, hence this article being created. Here is the Swedish article: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6teborgs_Internationella_Konstbiennal

In my opinion, this article couldn't be more objective, as it simply stated the title of each edition, the theme, the curator, the artists and the venues. This is the format used by the Liverpool Biennial. Is it just that the sources are mostly from GIBCA's website?

Can you please explain exactly why this article has been declined, given that an article for this same topic already exists in Swedish. And please can you let me know which specific things need to be edited in order for it to be published?

Thank you, Michelle

Michellebrownboynton (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Michellebrownboynton, I agree with coffman. That it "simply" lists facts doesn't mean it's not promotional--this listing itself (a kind of namedropping) is promotional. An encyclopedic article would describe the project, its history, its importance, and would verify that with secondary sources. That something exists on the Swedish wiki is immaterial here; their standards may differ. It might be instructive to look at documenta, which isn't great, but it's a lot more like a real article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, Thank you for your feedback, however, listing exhibited artists isn't namedropping or promotional, it is purely informative. Providing a list of artists is one of the most important pieces of information with regard to communicating about a Biennial. It is the same as listing artists in an exhibition. This isn't promotional in the slightest. :If you look at Munster Skulptur Projekte, the Istanbul Biennial, Desert X, the Whitney Biennial (just to name a few) each of these list their exhibiting artists that isn't a problem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skulptur_Projekte_M%C3%BCnster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Biennial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_X
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Biennial
(all English articles)
Can either of you please consider this and please advise how to proceed. There really needs to be an article about the Göteborg International Biennial for Contemporary Art as it has been around for almost 20 years now, and have had many non Swedish Speaking curators, artists, partners, and institutions involved. Thank you, Michelle

Michellebrownboynton (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2018

@Michellebrownboynton: Generally agree with Drmies. There are several reasons why the page came across as an advertisement: a. use of the org's own web site as source: http://www.gibca.se/en/2017/artists-gibca-2017 ; b. excessive listing of exhibition venues and artists, many of whom are non-notable. This is covered under WP:NOT. What would be relevant and encyclopedic is the reviews by critics and / or information on how it fits into the bigger trends of contemporary art, based on independent, third-party sources. Merely providing "factual" listings is the job of the org's own website. There's no need to duplicate them in the encyclopedia. Separately, are you affiliated with the organisation in any way? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what coffman says. "Providing a list of artists is one of the most important pieces of information with regard to communicating about a Biennial"--no, it is not, at least not in an encyclopedic article. All that information is already available on the organization's website. You know art exhibits, it seems--that's great, but this is an encyclopedia, and it's not the same thing. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Joseph Ngozi Nkoro‎[edit]

My article on Joseph Ngozi Nkoro was declined on the grounds that it sounded like an advert..

Kindly assist me to fish out those sections or line that sounded like an advert.. I wish this article to be as neutral as neutral can be..

Meanwhile I am already working to reduce any line that tends towards the advert..

Thank you Capt Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Capt Jack Sparrow: the subject does not meet notability guidelines and the page is an advertisement. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Medicare cost report[edit]

You moved the article about Medicare cost reports to Draft:Medicare cost report. I was not sure what the protocol is for responding. I tried responding on my talk page, and am responding here, as well.

Below is a quote from WP:ADVOCACY "Don't use Wikipedia articles to advocate your cause. Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view."

Medicare cost reports are neither anyone's personal beliefs nor agendas. There is an entire division at CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) whose sole job is to oversee the cost reports. Though I do not have one, relationship to any of the providers would be irrelevant, since filing Medicare cost reports is a requirement for Medicare participation, not a way to enrich providers. The aim of the article is to assist those providers in finding the information they need regarding Medicare Cost Reports and how and when to file them, so that they will remain compliant with Medicare regulations. I do have a relationship with https://blog.ppsassistant.com/, and quote it due to the dearth, lack of reliability, or lack of clarity of much of the other material about cost reports found on the web. Since this is a very specific topic, there are few experts in this area, and an even greater lack of information for providers who need it. Taking the article out of circulation will leave many who need the information in the dark. --TemiU (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TemiU: Since you have a WP:COI in re this topic, you should declare it on your user page. The page was linking excessively to https://blog.ppsassistant.com/, that's why I called it advocacy (i.e. you are promoting your blog by linking to it and citing it from Wikipedia). Re: I quote it due to the dearth, lack of reliability, or lack of clarity of much of the other material about cost reports found on the web, this means that the topic is likely to be non-notable and is not suitable for inclusion here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman, I do understand that many have not heard about Medicare cost reports, however for many it is essential information. I actually am in the process of looking for other sources of information for the article and was in the process of editing it as you reverted the changes. Since it was suggested that it be merged with "Medicare" by a different user, that is what I did. TemiU (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TemiU: Since you have COI in this area, it would be best that you don't edit the articles related to cost reports directly. Please review the information I left on your Talk page: User talk:TemiU#Managing a conflict of interest. You can still propose changes on related Talk pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Re: Draft: Jet Setting Jasmine Article Deletion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 31 October 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 10:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Re: Draft: Jet Setting Jasmine Article Deletion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Draft:Mark Mosimann[edit]


Hi,

I have had the Draft: Mark Mosimann page reviewed and denied, but I don't really understand why. There are plenty of external references, from independent bodies and the content is neither of advertising nature nor one-sided? Please can you advise?

Many thanks 164.215.104.169 (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenliggins: LinkedIn etc. are not reliable sources; the rest are passing mentions and / or self-promotional, resulting in an advertorial article on a non-notable individual. It's too soon, in my opinion, for the two brothers to have encyclopedia entries. You can ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Hope this helps. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:International Federation of Environmental Health[edit]

Hi

re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:International_Federation_of_Environmental_Health

I got the standard message re Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:International Federation of Environmental Health, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pauldavey#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Draft%3AInternational_Federation_of_Environmental_Health_

I understand your G11 section concerns but would challmeg them howeverbut the message (sent less than 12 hours ago at 4am local time) says

  • "If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. "

It's been deleted before I read the message - so objecting or improving it seems particularly hard!

For the record I'm not at all associated with the organisation, nor do I even work in that field. I was researching some other matters (on World Environmental Health Day - listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_dates ) and wanted to know what/who had created it - IFEH is listed but unexplained. So I found that this organisation had no entry at all but appears to be the main international EHO organisation.

As I recall I listed not only the organistion's own website, and brief summary of its stated puspose (is that inappropriate?) but also supporting citations and references to other international organisations inclduing academic and government websites and conferences. Format and layout may have needed some improvement - but I thought that was the type of content needed. (I'd looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations - and I think it's a notable organisation.)

I see you are an experienced Wikipedia editor so while I tried to follow the templates if you have an example of a better similar article or specific comments I'd be grateful to see them, or have your help.

If things are deleted so rapidly without a copy available or a chance to amend them - even if only in draft form - it hardly makes me keen to bother doing more for wikipedia.

I've done enough writing to be happy at challenges over content, policy or other constructive cricitism, but being told that "you may contest the nomination" when it is already seems to be too late is really quite disheartening.

Can you help?

Pauldavey (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pauldavey: The page was excessively promotional; I don't recall that there was there anything worth "saving". Mission statements, management directory listings, excessive detail and the use of primary sources suggest a. lack of notability; b. advertorial focus. The article had been resubmitted without apparent improvement, still being something you'd find on the org's own website, not in encyclopedia.
For sample, please have a look at these two pages that I created:
Both articles are quite short, which helps to a. write and source them; b. avoid looking promotional. It's okay to use primary sources (i.e. the org's own website) for the date it was founded and where it's located, but the rest should come from independent, secondary sources. Websites of other organisations are also primary sources. I recall I attempted to look for secondary sources, but did not see anything apparent. If you find such sources please feel free to ask me about them here. Then I could suggest whether or not it makes sense to recreate the page. Hope this helps. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and examples.

As I created the stub page sometime ago and was critised by another enditor for incomplete info IIRC I expanded it listing separate third party references and so me context. I tried to follow the template format suggested, but I have no problem with making it shorter.

However I some kind of entry adds value to Wikipedia as whole by defining what is clearly a bona fide international organisation

I don't think in overall length it was that different your your Bundeswehr reference, but perhaps a little longer than the Military History Working Group - once I expanded it. But as I don't have the text or references that were there I am no longer able to actually compare them.

Please can you post the previous content here and I will work on it offline or shall we settle for this topic not being of any interest.

Pauldavey (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pauldavey: I see that an administrator has restored the page for you. Good luck with your draft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - looking better now. I wasn't able to edit last month but some folks helped tidy it up. Still concise, factual, with links to two external references and only relying on the org itself for a brief statement of its aims and link to its offfical website. Pauldavey (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How soon is too soon?[edit]

Hello! I noticed you declined my submission for my article on the group Ateez. I made sure to add numerous sources unconnected to the group itself and reworded a lot of the content to improve the article and resubmitted, but I am confused as to why it would be too soon to create an article about the group when they've been active since June this year. If you could give me some advice on how to make the article more suitable for wikipedia, I and many others would be very grateful. Thank you! Finnybug (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnybug: the age of the group does not really have anything to do with whether it's too soon, or not, to have an encyclopedia entry. This is determined by whether significant coverage of the subject exists. In the case of Draft:ATEEZ, I found that it did not. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Julian Agyeman[edit]

Hi, You tagged my draft for speedy deletion and I understand your concerns, but I was wondering if there is any way that you could remove that tag and instead mark it as needing editing? I understand your concerns but most of the article I modeled after other academic pages and I believe the problem came when I tried to show that the person met notability standards, which I believe he does (I am happy to explain which specific criteria are met if you want to discuss his notability), and that led to some phrasing that may have sounded promotional. I think that the issues can be fixed and I will work to create a more neutral-sounding draft with any input that you have if you do remove the tag. I would really appreciate your help!

Thanks! Rnf1811 (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rnf1811: you've submitted the draft four times. In neither of these occasions, it was suitable to be moved to main space, due to lack of notability and promotionalism. In short, it's a non-viable draft that is being resubmitted disruptively. Separately, are you affiliated with the subject in any way? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, K.e.coffman/Archive/2018. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JC7V-talk 18:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JC7V7DC5768: I would decline. The subject lacks notability independent of his company, while the sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. The creator, Special:Contributions/Central_Midfielder, also appears to have a COI, which they have not declared. Hope this helps. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC[edit]

May you please contact the original writer - I am not the one writing it but it's the one who moves or from the Chinese namespace. The original author is User:Yanilau

Many thanks! 1233Talk 18:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC) @1233: thank you for letting me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Holeček[edit]


Hello,

I just got a message today that my draft:Marek_Holecek has been rejected because of the potential COI. I am actually quite sad dn crushed as I have been working on the article for over two months tapping into tens of published articles, watching various TV and online interviews and reading multiple books to create a notable entry on the best Czech climber who was awarded with the most important global mountaineering prize this year. I can't by any means imagine having a COI issue as I don't know him personally, I am only genuinely interested in the subject of mountaineering and climbing (loving mountains and climbing myself) and felt the most accomplished person in the Czech Republic deserved a mention on Wiki in English. His Czech WIki page already exists.

As I believe my draft would bring value as a source of information, I would really appreciate you indicating to me what should be changed or modified so it meets the publishing criteria. I am truly lost as clueless as I can't think of anything that would not be mentioned in public media, newspapers or anything being promotional or not neutral...I tried my best to tap into as many sources I could to make the article as good as I could.

Thank you so much in advance for your advise.

Vdrapalova (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Vdrapalova: Your draft has not been rejected because of the potential COI; it has been rejected because it does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. If you would like your article to be published, please read the policy and edit the article to comply with it, then submit again. Catrìona (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vdrapalova: correct; the article was too promotional to have been accepted. I see that it has now been improved and published here: Marek Holeček. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:BevSpot ‎[edit]

Can we please talk about why my article was declined? So when I edit SeatGeek's page, it's fine all good, but edit a different company, no no no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadburgess (talk • contribs)

@Chadburgess: The draft was declined because the article comes across as an advertorial, while the sourcing is routine notices, passing mentions and / or self-promotional. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Marcus Claudius Gilcia[edit]

Hi,

I have a couple of queries re. the declined article on Marcus Claudius Gilcia.

The only comment left was that briefly serving as Dictator would not satisfy notability. Seeing as under WP:POL, any national politician would qualify as notable, it would seem strange that an extraordinary and plenipotentiary magistrate would not, regardless how long his term was. Are ancient politicians held to a different standard?

Secondly, I believe this would more than satisfy WP:GNG, meaning that WP:POL is merely a happy extra. Given the difference between modern and ancient sources, it is rare to have any information handed down in detail on individuals; there are quite simply far many famous people today than there were in the past. That said, in this case, though we have lost the primary source (Livy), the fact that a three line summary of that book of Livy (Periochae 19) mentions Gilcia would point towards a large role played in the narrative by him. Given the low number of names handed down, and the fact that this specific case was deemed important enough to be mentioned in a summary, could you please clarify how GNG affects Roman politicians. As this is an area of particular interest to me, this would be very useful.

Thanks LarciusFlavus (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LarciusFlavus: I see that it has been accepted by another contributor. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Solar-PuTTY[edit]


Hello K.e.coffman, I'd like to ask, why my article about Solar-PuTTY has been declined as being "advertisement" more than "neutral point of view". To be honest, I can't agree with this statement, as far as the article was written based on research upon the similar published articles (see articles about PuTTY, mintty, and WinSCP). The article has got a lot of hyperlinks into the Wikipedia itself, as well as 4 external references that leads to independent articles around the internet. I'd like to ask you to considering the fact that my article is more or less the same as articles already published and have a look at the review process once more. In the case, you still think that this article does not fit to Wikipedia standards, please, I'll be glad for any specific feedback (the current one is too general to use it for improvement).

Thanks, Ursus

UrsusLuin (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@UrsusLuin: Please note an article in mainspace does not mean it has met the requirement of Wikipedia and it should not take it as the benchmark article but one should seek to meet the guidelines of what is required. Notability guidelines have been significantly tightened in the past couple of years.
Secondly, any articles in the main space in Wikipedia could subject for nomination of AfD (articles for deletion) it the nominator deems the article to fail the notability guidelines. When I reviewed the draft, I concluded that the subject does not meet the current guidelines for notability. The coverage is in passing and / or self-promotional, while the content is largely uncited and is advertorial in nature. You can ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Hope this helps. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kastle Systems‎[edit]

Hello K.e.coffman.

I received your notice of speedy deletion of my draft page, Kastle Systems, which you feel violates Wikipedia Policy for promotional content. This is blatantly unfair and i suggest you take a look at these pages that Wikipedia happily allowed to be posted by some of our biggest competitors (ADT, Vivint, Honeywell, HID Global). Please explain to me what the difference between their post and what I created that you deemed ready for speedy delete. This seems like anti-competitive behavior on your part. Please explain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADT_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HID_Global https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Security_companies_of_the_United_States

18:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kmcadams1: Honeywell is a $40blm public company, while Kastle appears to have generated $100mln in revenues in the most recent year. Wikipedia has a related essay that would be relevant: Wikipedia:Einstein. Also, if you have a conflict-of-interest in re: this subject, please declare it on your user page. Please see a note on your Talk page: User talk:Kmcadams1#Managing a conflict of interest. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/October&oldid=944875038"