User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2019/April

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

Draft:GNP Energy[edit]

Hi. I am working on the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GNP_Energy, and you rejected it due to notability. I have used this as a template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fjordkraft, and I firmly believe that my article meets the same standards. Could you perhaps help me determine how to increase its notability and improve the content? All sources should be impartial and trustworthy. Have a nice day! peterkragh (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkragh: :Please review WP:NCORP and especially WP:CORPDEPTH. I did not find the subject to meet these requirements and that's why I declined it. Separately, if another company has an article, it does not mean that it would pass today's notability guidelines or that it won't be deleted in the future. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Alleged] Edit Warring[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Albert Speer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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.
You have been repeatedly warned that this source is unreliable because the author claims to be able to read minds.

AN discussion[edit]

K.e. Considering he is the one who has been blocked for 48 hours, I would say you can remove this warning above, if you wish. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kierzek: Thank you for the suggestion. I rarely remove posts from my Talk page, so I'll keep this one. But I adjusted the header to indicate that the warning was made on bogus grounds. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:EarthQuaker Devices[edit]

​Hi, I wanted to check with you and see if the edits I've made to the draft address your concerns about notability. I've added several extensive sections on the history of the organization, their sales and growth, as well as their design process and outreach events. I've drawn on several newspapers, interviews, magazines, and other sources. I would greatly appreciate your guidance in continuing to develop this draft and prepare it for publication on Wikipedia. Potatowrite (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Potatowrite: no, I don't believe so. However, you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@K.e.coffman: Thanks for letting me know. I'll ask for some additional advice and see if I can't improve the text in the meanwhile. Thank you again for the feedback! Potatowrite (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinated smear campaign[edit]

FYI, someone on Reddit Wikipedia is accusing you of being pro-Nazi for “attacking opponents of Hitler” (read: removing Clean Wermarcht nonsense front Wikipedia). Whoever posted this went to a lot of effort to twist your actions and make you look despicable. I debated whether it was worth bringing this to your attention, but the post has hundreds of upvotes and looks like it could spread. (If you’re already aware of this, then my apologies for bringing it up on your talk page). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Clean Wehrmacht nonsense, in Herman Wouk's The Winds of War and War and Remembrance, Armin von Roon writes "history" from the CW perspective. I'd mention it in the article, but haven't found any secondary source for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: There is much popular history / hobbyist literature written from the "clean Wehrmacht" POV, either because the authors are not aware of this, or because they are only interested in battlefield action, which is a rather myopic view. Even the older academic literature, especially if it extensively used Wehrmacht generals' memoirs as sources, falls into the same trap. So it's not surprising that such sources are used and defended here -- even though these debates are decades out of date, as Stahel puts it. BTW, the Battle for Wikipedia article is no longer available online, but I saved a PDF. I'd be happy to email it if there's interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spirit of Eagle: Thank you for the concern. This is probably related to a recent incident; see: #AN discussion. The comments at AN were getting more and more unhinged, ending with this: [1]. So I would not be surprised if this were the same user. Such comments are unpleasant, but they don't faze me any more. ----K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I found interesting/enjoyable in Wouk's novels is the fictional use of CW. The reader is given excerpts of the fictional World Empire Lost (I think it was called), which also includes comments from the American translator who tells us when he thinks von Roon is talking bullshit. Really good books. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Interesting; I watched portions of the miniseries but did not realise that there was an epistolary component in the book. I'll check it out. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-In writing this book, I have only one aim: to defend the honor of the German soldier. Yeah, that's a change between the versions, apart from "his book", Roon is hardly in the plot at all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My grandfather served in the United States Army during WWII, and I’m sure he would have been absolutely fascinated to learn about all the “opponents of Hitler” he fought during the war. Sarcasm aside, thanks a lot for your efforts to clean up bad history and pro-Nazi nonsense. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, and I’m glad you’re not fazed by these attacks. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019[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) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Article for Deletion[edit]

Hi K.e.coffman, Would you be able to offer your expertise reviewing an article that was deleted due to notability issues.The deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NetBase_Solutions was moved to my talk page and I have subsequently started to update it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScottHin45/NetBase_Solutions. I know you were someone who originally flagged this for deletion, so thought you'd be a good person to talk with. Thanks! --ScottHin45 (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottHin45: As having been deleted via a deletion discussion, this would need to go through Wikipedia:Deletion review to be restored. However, I don't believe that success would be likely as the company, in my estimation, is non-notable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Krukenberg[edit]

K.e. - I circled back to do some work on this article, after re-adding it to my watchlist. I have added some detail and RS citing and looking at the talk page, back in December 2015, you brought up a discussion about his service time in the USSR. If you still have the Smelser and Davies book (and have the time), can you fill that in. It sounds as if he was training Bandenbekämpfung units. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kierzek: Thank you for letting me know. Yes, I have the book; I will have a look this week. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EHESS[edit]

Hey. Take a look at User:Icewhiz/sandbox#EHESS. I'm mulling writing this up - it definitely passes notability, though I might wait for more sources (they seem to be coming out quite a bit this month - and seeing the authors - probably will be in journals as well). The problem at this point is that while there are sources in English - sourcing in French is more copious (there's also an excellent recent piece in German in Neue Zürcher Zeitung)- and I'd prefer to do this only off of English. What do you think?Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: I would wait a bit longer, to avoid a NOTNEWS situation. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Vardoulakis[edit]

Hi. May you please send User:K.e.coffman/Dimitris Vardoulakis to a second AfD? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pirhayati, why are you asking this question? --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the page will be kept this time. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pirhayati: for the page to be recreated, the sandbox version does not need to be deleted. In any case, it's good to have a backup version. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who should be ashamed here?[edit]

Take a look at [2]. Discussion split at Talk:Rota (poem) and Talk:Anti-German sentiment. I do wonder if an attempt to portray a anti-Germanization symbol as anti-German is 'distortionist'. Some neutral mediation might be needed here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love some neutral mediation here. Sources on this anti-German poem (containing the memorable line "The German won't spit in our face") are rather clear - e.g.
  1. "Rota also... It was written in the ninteenth century to mobilize the nation against the Prussian oppressors. Now, despite its "anacrhonism" and nationalistic overtones, the communist activists found that the talk about "the Germans" who "shall not spit in our face" had useful contemporary relevance - its mandatory singing became part of the morning and evening "apel" starting May 30, 1943. As with the anti-German rhetoric in Pravda, the demonization of the Germans helped generate hatred and a fighting spirit. [1]
  2. "one of the best known patriotic, and anti-German, poems (and songs) in the Polish heritage.... Even though used by Communist government to keep up anti-German sentiments in Poland, the song was also sung in Polish churches" .... The first line of one of the stanzs of Rota is: "Nie bedzi Niemiec plul nam w twarz" ("The German will not spit in our face"). [2]
  3. "Anti-German feeling manifested itself on the popular level by the singing of "Rota", a song of anti-German defiance dating from turn-of-the-century Prussian Poland that includes the line "The Germans will not spit in our faces any more"; it was so frequently in the 1930s that is acquired for some the status of a second national anthem. Anti-German feeling also continued to find exprression in acts of violence against the minority and its property.. [3]

References

  1. ^ Soviet Soft Power in Poland: Culture and the Making of Stalin's New Empire 1943-1957, University of North Carolina press, Patryk Babiracki, pages 24-25
  2. ^ The Language of Belonging, Palgrave Macmillan, U. Meinhof, D. Galasinski, pages 37-38
  3. ^ Orphans Of Versailles: The Germans in Western Poland, 1918-1939, Richard Blanke, The University Press of Kenucky, page 202
Icewhiz (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because not wishing to be spat upon is "hateful" against the spitter, according to Icewhiz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm advocating use of non-English sources, but as a TP response - this paper by Andrzej Romanowski recounts an ugly 1925 episode in Janów, Upper Silesia (a mixed German/Polish area), where the headmaster Józef Madej ordered the assembled children to sing the Rota, right hand raised as an oath. When he noticed that an 11 year old boy of German nationality did not comply, he ordered him to kneel before the cross and raise his hand and recount two stanzas. According to witness accounts when the boy did not comply - Madej kicked him to the ground. The local Volksbund issued complaint 281 to mixed commission (plwiki) - according to Romanowski stating that "W uzasadnieniu Niemcy twierdzili, że Rota obraża ich uczucia narodowe i wznieca nienawiść. Nieprzypadkowo pieśń ta — dodawano w innych kręgach — jest urzędowo zakazana w Czechosłowacji" (google translate: "In the justification, the Germans claimed that Rota offends their national feelings and incites hatred. It is not a coincidence that this song - it was added in other circles - is officially banned in Czechoslovakia"). The mixed commission determined that: "Nie da się [...] pogodzić z duchem K onw encji Genew skiej, jeżeli w szkołach Górnego Śląska zarządza się lub toleruje śpiew anie pieśni w yrażających uczucie zem sty, nienaw iści lub pogardy dla narodowości jednej z obu części, ludności." (google translate: "It is impossible [...] to reconcile with the spirit of the Geneva Institute, if Upper Silesian schools teach or tolerate singing songs that express feelings of evil, hate or contempt for the nationality of one of the two parts, the population"). The Silesian voivode - Michał Grażyński (whom Romanowski says is known for other anti-German incidents) - rejected the ruling by Calonder. Besides being rather self-evident from the lyrics themselves - the inciteful nature of this anti-German song is well attested. Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My 2p: a patriotic song can be anti-X; there's nothing shameful about that. I would recommend crafting a short para on the topic and then launching an RfC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...[edit]

April
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving articles in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Speer[edit]

Hello:

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

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

I have left a note on the FAR page as requested by @Szzuk:.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twofingered Typist: as always, excellent work. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Speer[edit]

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For de-mythologising Albert Speer. Szzuk (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Szzuk: no, thank you — since you are doing most of the work. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to each of you for an FA article, which requires fine, detailed, npov work. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had stopped editing the article and unwatched because I decided too much work was required. Your edits brought me back. I've slightly altered the wording of the barnstar on the assumption it is more in line with your work (revert it if you prefer). I keep my own personal userpages empty, it is my way of dealing with the obvious. Szzuk (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Szzuk: Thank you; but I've just started the process. It did make me read Martin Kitchen's book. I can't say I enjoyed it as Speer seems such a vapid character :). In any case, I changed the barnstar language to "de-mythologising" since that's what my userpage is mostly about.
I've enjoyed collaborating on the article! I hope that FAR closes soon. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the myth is extraordinary. He kills millions, manipulates himself into being the "good Nazi" and it last decades. It is crazy stuff. Still, I'll be glad when it closes! Szzuk (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've started editing Heinrich Himmler, the book I have is Peter Longerich, is the source any good? Have you read? Szzuk (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Szzuk: Yes, I would say it's a definitive source. I've not read this book, but I read Longerich's biography of Goebbels; it was insightful and well written. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you that both of his biographies on each of those subjects are two of the best; and Dianna and I used each of those books when bringing both articles up to GA. Kierzek (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might have a read of Goebbels and edit a bit of that, Goring is something of an unknown to me. Thanks for the info. Szzuk (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You’re welcome; Speer is something of an unknown to me, and I only spot read his autobio years ago and have not read the Bios on him. Cheers, John.

The Signpost: 30 April 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2019/April&oldid=897761409"