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

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

Happy New Year[edit]

Hi K.e.coffman. You graciously wished me season's greetings and I boorishly omitted to reciprocate. Apologies. Happy New Year; may your keyboard never grow cool and your articles always intrigue. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your message[edit]

moved from user page I do see where you are coming from. This kind of thing is frustrating to all involved. It's happened to me too, but I have to live with it, as I did with this guy. Administrators' actions need to be above reproach. "Give them enough rope..." is my motto. Deb (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: thank you for your message; we'll see what happens. WP:ROPE & all that :). --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:José Luis Dámaso Martinez[edit]

Hello, I recently had my article on Jose Luis Damaso Martinez (see link below) declined because of your thinking that I am writing an autobiography.

I wanted to inform you that I am not Damaso and I am wondering what gave you that impression? Is there any way I can prove that I am not writing an autobiography and that this is a genuine article?

Further, I am not certain how this article could be interrupted as being written as an advertisement or PR endorsement. I did not use hyperboles, excessive language or sensationalist adjectives (any positive adjectives really) to describe Damaso's accomplishments. Rather, I plainly stated what he had accomplished in his coaching career to date.

I have seen many people with much less success than Damaso receive a Wikipedia page so I am baffled at this rejection.

How can we work together to fix this so that the article can be accepted?

Thank you for your time and help.

Talk soon. Jaxxx23 (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Jaxxx23[reply]

@Jaxxx23: The tone of the article suggests a WP:COI or WP:PAID relationship. If this is the case, you need to disclose it. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: I have taken your recommendation and disclosed my WP:PAID relationship. Please let me know if this works in order for the article to be published. Thank you Jaxxx23 (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaxxx23: Thank you. Please place the disclosure on your user page as well. Regarding the draft, the disclosure is the minimum requirement; notability is a different matter. You can resubmit the draft and it will be reviewed in due course. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Thank you. Will do. Jaxxx23 (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

新年快乐！[edit]

May strength and courage be with you in 2019. Happy editing in the brave new year! Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsumikiria: thank you; same to you. Hope to see you around in 2019. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austral season's greetings[edit]

Austral season's greetings
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings.[edit]

Hello K.e.coffman: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ 16:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: thank you; same here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

Hello fellow editor! I noticed you reverted a revert I made on a page recently, which is great. But you accidently posted a warning template on my talk page that didn't apply at all. I understand it was a mistake and I've removed it. In the future, feel free to use the WP:SANDBOX to suss out any issues before editing. Thanks for helping to make Wikipedia a better place! HappenedAnd88 (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HappenedAnd88: the wording of these templates is bit off sometimes, but its intent was clear: "Caution | Not adhering to neutral point of view". When you remove Gab (social network) and Voat from Template:White nationalism claiming that it's "unconstructive" to list them, it's pretty clear that the edit does not adhere to NPOV: [1]. That was the intent of the warning. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: the creepy editor has been indef blocked as a sock of Special:Contributions/OnceASpy, who is also indef blocked. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season Greetings[edit]

Merry Christmas K.e.coffman/Archive/2019


Hi K.e.coffman/Archive/2019, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
May next year be prosperous and joyful.
   –Scopecreep Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 10.43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: thank you; hope to see you around in 2019. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, K.e.![edit]

Happy New Year!

Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. and peace and goodwill. All the very best , K.e.,
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: thank you. Hope to see you around in 2019. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Year in Review[edit]

The Barnstar of Integrity
For the thoughtful words you shared at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/Op-ed you are hereby awarded The Barnstar of Integrity. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Socratic Barnstar
For the thoughtful discussion that began as a result of you op-ed you are hereby awarded The Socratic Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TomStar81: thank you for thinking of me and the barnstars! K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Madhu Bhaskaran[edit]

Hi, I see that you declined this at AFC citing that it had insufficient refs for a BLP. I thought the requirement was one reference. Obv more is great, but has the requirement been increased? Victuallers (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers: The other concern was promotionalism, which is still present in the draft. For example, the section on board memberships is both uncited and unneeded. Please also be sure to remove all external links from the body of the article, as they are not permitted and add to the advertorial nature of the draft (external links in the Reference section are fine). Once you feel that the draft has been sufficiently improved, you can resubmit it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I assume that BLP ref requirement is still one which was my question. Promotionalism is a tricky thing to address when we ask editors to say how important their subjects are. I agree about the external refs and they have been removed and the article has gone to main space. Thanks for your reply. Victuallers (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Victuallers: thank you; looks much better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising categories[edit]

Hello. Please remember to add categories to any new categories you create - it's essential they are plugged in to the existing category hierarchy so that both humans and maintenance bots can find them. You've been showing up on the Wikipedia:Database_reports/Uncategorized_categories list a fair bit lately. Also just in general try to avoid WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION - a good category has 30-200 members, one that isn't going to have more than half a dozen or so is likely to get deleted/merged per WP:SMALLCAT. Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Deluge: thank you; will do. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BounceX[edit]

I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bounce Exchange. Anyway I found an article in the Commercial Observer about a company called "Bounce Exchange" or "BounceX" leasing space in the new World Trade Center. I might be able to make a truly independent article on this company.... BounceX Moving to 79K SF at 1 World Trade Center. --WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: this is basically a rewarmed press release, even including a quote from the exec:
  • “We are thrilled BounceX is relocating their New York office to One World Trade Center,” Jonathan “Jody” Durst, the president of Durst Organization, said in a statement. “Companies choose 1 World Trade Center because the building fosters innovation and attracts growing companies that thrive in our energetic and creative environment.”
Companies move to new offices all the time; this is a routine piece of news. In any case, I don't see sources that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH in re: this company. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Newspapers substantially using press releases as sources, unfortunately that is a common issue; even if the newspaper employee technically wrote it, he/she possibly isn't adding enough unique information and would be too beholden to the company, so I suppose it's better to wait until other sources about Space X come up.
As for companies moving offices, I agree that with branch offices it is routine. With their headquarters/principal places of business it often is a big deal; I recall the Mayor of Houston being overjoyed when Continental Airlines moved Downtown, while NYC Mayor Ed Koch didn't like it when American Airlines moved to Fort Worth.
There are occasions where branch offices moving are a big deal: Shell Oil Company probably didn't think much about shutting its offices in Southside Place, Texas, but that was a big chunk of tax money going away for the tiny municipality, so for them it was a big deal, and the Houston Chronicle articles covered that info.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WhisperToMe: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bounce Exchange which was quite thorough. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had beforehand read the final comments from people stating that they used your rationale to vote delete. After seeing your detailed comments, I recognize the whole "not intellectually independent" rationale straight-away. Frankly I agree that articles about companies need to be intellectually independent to count as notable. One unfortunate thing is, with cutbacks in the newspaper/media industry, new articles will be less and less likely to be intellectually independent :(
    • Also I've seen somewhere (I forget where) that "Business Journals" often just rehash press releases...
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 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) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ServiceTitan[edit]

Hello, thanks for your feedback on this article - I responded to your query on paid editing in my user talk space. As I am getting more and more familiar with the wikipedia community rules, I would love to get your advice on what defines the notability status (I have read over the WP:NCORP guidelines numerous times and believed that this article met the regulations - has substantial and independent coverage from multiple sources). I chose to write about Service Titan because I am familiar with the industry, and they accumulated numerous characteristics that make them extremely well-known in the venture capital and startup community in general, and in the gig economy marketplace in particular: - Unicorn status (market valuation over $1 billion) - Market leader with 20% market share across two countries - Part of the American-Armenian commercial agreement

I would love your guidance: is this is sufficiently notable but not well explained? If so, how can I improve on this? Thanks so much. - Accessexpertise (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Accessexpertise: The draft was rejected for notability reasons. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and especially WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hemdee_Kiwanuka[edit]

Hello @K.e.coffman:

I pray all is well... It was disappointing when I received a reject e-mail of my created article due to my last name Kiwanuka as a Conflict of interest I would like you to please reconsider this decision. Due to my last name, it may seem that I might be related to Hemdee Kiwanuka, but that is far from the truth, I am just a fan of anyone with the name Kiwanuka. As a Ugandan, the name Kiwanuka means so much, your last name identifies what tribe and clan you belong to, but it doesn't mean that you are related to that person with the same last name. Below are more people with the name Kiwanukas but we are not related. As I was following and searching for singer Rachel K (musician) and actress/singer Halima Namakula, sister and mother to Hemdee Kiwanuka, I realized that Hemdee Kiwanuka doesn't have a page so I read/researched and created one for him as a tribe's mate and fan of the Kiwanuka family, plus I know what Hemdee Kiwanuka as done for my country Uganda via seeing him on TV and reading about him in the local news.

There is also a singer Michael Kiwanuka, business woman Kiwanuka, Maria and football player Mathias Kiwanuka... I reference all this people with the same last name as mine, not to undermine you at all, but to show you that we are not so many Ugandans highlighted, so when a few makes it internationally, the entire country gets to know about it, so we follow those who makes it very closely.

So @K.e.Coffman, Instead of rejecting my article, I humbly request you to please help me make it better, so that I can also continue creating articles for others Ugandans who deserves it. Could you please Re-Review the article... You also declined due to Notability of Hemdee Kiwanuka's credentials as an actor/producer and concert promoter, so I deleted the acting and concert credentials and only kept Film and Television Producer because Hemdee Kiwanuka had more articles written about him as a producer than an actor and concert promoter.

Thank you Leah Kiwanuka (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Leah Kiwanuka: Your draft was not rejected because of a potential conflict of interest. Instead, the draft was rejected because its subject was not shown to be notable. It's great to see more articles about African topics, but Wikipedia has to be based off of reliable sources and if there's not enough coverage, we can't justify an article. I would encourage you read up on notability guidelines and contribute to articles whose topics are notable. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 03:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thank you so much for taking a pick at my creation, I've read over notability guidelines rules and guidelines over and over again, can you please clarify and help me understand what is notable, because I looked at other artists, business people and actors from Uganda and they all used the same references as I used creating Hemdee Kiwanuka's page. I will try to create another artist or personality page and see if that will pass the wiki criteria, but the only reference I can make are our local news papers. Leah Kiwanuka (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leah Kiwanuka: I think an easier way of learning the ropes may be trying to edit existing articles. See for example Category:Uganda. There are various sub-categories listed there that may interest you, such as Category:Ugandan culture, also with multiple sub-categories. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belated happy holidays and happy new year![edit]

Thank you, K.e., for your thoughtful holiday greeting on my talk page; I had great holidays and hope you did, too, and I hope you have a great 2019, as well! —Undomelin (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same here! Waleswatcher (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Martin Speake[edit]

I had a bit of a go at cleanup, what do you think? Govvy (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I add a couple of citations, I was thinking of removing two paragraphs because of that mention. Govvy (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Benjamin Teixeira de Aguiar[edit]

Hi There, Thanks for pointing out the article inconsistencies with the Wikipedia standards. As a fan of sharing useful information on the internet, I'll change the article to fit the Wikipedia standards and I'll resubmit if for review. Further, I'd like to let you know that I do not get paid, neither I'm trying to promote or advertise anyone. There is already a Wikipedia page about Benjamin Teixeira de Aguiar in Portuguese Wikipedia, so I'm just sharing it with the non-Portuguese speakers. Also, I don't have any relationship with Benjamin Teixeira de Aguiar. I got to know his work by the Ph.D. thesis of Dra. Emma F. Stone and from articles about Spirituality with or without religion.

Thank you again and I'll copy this declaration o my profile in the WP:COI layout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijgsantos (talk • contribs) 05:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ijgsantos: the article is still highly promotional, and even more so, with the latest expansion. The notability is questionable if any. It's unlikely to pass review, to be honest. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pete Demers[edit]

Hello - thanks for reviewing the page I submitted. I can shorten it as requested. I object to your criticism that the article should "be written from a neutral point of view" - as it is written from a neutral point of view. I also object to the criticism that the article "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." The footnotes include 14 independent sources. The information provided by the subject is the only way to confirm some facts of his life.

I intend to continue working on this entry as the subject is valid and merits inclusion. Further clarity about sourcing criticism and tone are needed. Thank you MarionPB (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarionPB: Please see User talk:MarionPB#Paid editing disclosure. The disclosure being placed on your user page and the article's Talk page is mandatory. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - thanks for this information. I already posted the disclosure on my talk page. The disclosure is also on the entry talk page. Can you tell me why his original headshot was removed from the article. Revisions to shorten the article are in progress. Thanks - MarionPB (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarionPB: The image was deleted on Commons via a deletion discussion, in which you participated. For general advice on how to improve your draft, please see Wikipedia:Your first article. Once you feel that the draft has been sufficiently improved, you can resubmit it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Thanks for your response. I did not participate in the discussion about the photo that was deleted. I have permission to use the image as well as the pictured content. I would like the image restored as part of the editing. Thanks MarionPB (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarionPB: Here's the Commons discussion: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter G Demers with Hall of Fame Plaque.jpg. Wikimedia Commons is a separate from en.wiki; you can inquire with the deleting administrator there. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your tireless work keeping the Nazi's and their pals away!★Trekker (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Einsatzgruppen in August 1941[edit]

What were the Einsatzgruppen doing in August 1941? Hunting partisans of course, per this diff. Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: That's a good one. I added the article to my collection at User:K.e.coffman#"Ah, partisanen!". It's disturbing that we get such diffs in the year 2018. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Kluge (again!)[edit]

In the next week, when I have more free time to re-read books and research, I will finish my part on Kluge. Once we are content with the article’s quality, it will be your turn to pick a subject :) We can discuss that and some books you recommend for me to prepare researching.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: it's good to see you back. I need to dust off my Barbarossa books; I believe I've already moved the content pertaining to the Battle of Moscow to Kluge's article. Regarding WWII books in general, my library is here: User:K.e.coffman/Library. I can recommend all of these books; it just depends on what topic areas interest you. I got many of these books after watching the authors' talks on Youtube. If you'd like, I can link some of my favourite ones. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not too much trouble, I would like those links. I think I want to contribute to articles on the Einsatzgruppen and the Holocaust on the Eastern Front, if there is room for improvement in those areas of course. I am also open to other suggestions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have nearly completed editing Kluge on the Western Front; all that is left to discuss is the Falaise Pocket. It is odd researching this stage of his career and the rapidly changing situation in France, knowing he would be dead by the end of August. I probably do not have the books to sufficiently cover the Eastern Front, but I can pick up a few you recommended if you need help.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGracefulSlick: Kluge in 1943 would be good to cover. If you are interested in the Eastern Front, then getting Robert Citino's book on 1943 would be useful. It was a great read (although I don't own it; I borrowed it from the library):
  • Citino, Robert M. (2012). The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1826-2.
Here's the corresponding lecture on YouTube: "Fighting a Lost War: The German Army in 1943", which is quite engaging. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, I was not the one who added “Hans” to Kluge’s name. None of my sources claim that was his first name. I will remove it from the lead.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGracefulSlick: My addition at User:K.e.coffman#Apocryphal nicknames was not directed at you at all; I apologise if it came across this way. When I edit articles, I sometimes look up the old version. In Kluge's case, I came across the section name "Opposition to Hitler", which I found odd. While Kluge turned a blind eye to the conspirators on his staff, he did not oppose Hitler per se, and the section more or less discussed this lack as such. I did find the uncited passage in re: the nickname to be hilarious, especially given where it was placed. This topic area sometimes contains such irrelevant trivia, so that was no surprise, but the link to Clever Hans was too much :).
BTW, "Hans" does appear to be part of his official name: "Hans Günther von Kluge 1882-1944". at Deutsches Historisches Museum., but I've not seen it in English-language sources, so I think it's fine to keep it out of the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No apology is necessary. By the way, does anything suggest his birth name is “Gunther Adolf Ferdinand Kluge”? The article is coming together well. After some touchups to his role (or lack thereof) in the 20 July plot and the intro, it should nearly be ready for review.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need some clarity before I finish editing Kluge. From what I have researched, Kluge had conferences with conspirators of the 20 July plot, and he agreed to cooperate but only if Hitler was dead. When it was discovered that he survived, Kluge backed out. On 17 August 1944, he was dismissed because he refused to order a counter-attack, and Hitler was convinced he was negotiating with the Allies. Does that align with what you have read? Also, how much weight should be given to Stroop’s claim of killing Kluge?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TheGracefulSlick: Since this part of the discussion may be of interest to other editors, I responded on the article's Talk page: Talk:Günther von Kluge#20 July plot; manner of death. Hope you don't mind. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I finished work on Kluge during the 20 July plot and his death. Would you be willing editing the introduction? I only ask because I do not consider writing those to be a strength of mine. Once that and whatever else is left on the Eastern Front are complete, we can probably consider nominating the article for review.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @TheGracefulSlick: I'm pretty much finished with the 1941-43 period as well. I've expanded the lead; I'm open to improvements. Please feel free to suggest other articles to work on; there are plenty to pick from. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is it alright with you if I nominate the article for review? You will receive a notice when an editor picks it up, correct? I am pretty set on Guderian being our next topic, but I will think it over in case anything else comes to mind.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was fast!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended WWII lectures[edit]

The Wehrmacht myth (both are must see)

WWII strategy / operational history / Wehrmacht criminality

Holocaust in Eastern Europe

@TheGracefulSlick: This would be a good start. I own books by all of these historians and can recommend them all. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: Adding Victor Davis Hanson:
  • Why World War II Matters -- this was really interesting because Hanson provides a 30,000 view of the conflict, and some of the stats he used were new to me, putting the conflict into a different perspective. Recommended.
  • World War II Leadership -- a deeper dive into the leaders.
--K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Coffman, I nearly finished the first set of videos; House and Citino were my particular favorites. I will watch these after the holidays (Merry Christmas by the way!).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Counsel on a crypto company page creation[edit]

Hello, I saw on WikiProject Crytocurrency that you are quite interested in moderating cryptocurrency related articles and even proposed some articles for deletion and AFDed others. I'm looking to create a page for a Crypto company "Paxful", here is a quick google search result about the company. Checking through Wikipedia I discovered a draft has previously been created in 2016 by a user that seems to have WP:COI but was rejected. So I seek your advice as a more experienced colleague, do you think it's worth giving a shot? or I should divert my energy to something else. Regards Epaomo (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epaomo: The company doesn't look notable to me. Most of the search results are press releases, blogs, or a Forbes contributor, which do not count for notability per WP guidelines (see WP:Perennial sources). If you're interested in crypto, I would encourage you to improve existing articles, such as cryptocurrency, bitcoin, etc. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing my gut was telling me but felt I should seek clarification. Thanks for your time I really appreciate it. --Epaomo (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hartmann[edit]

The current situation on the Hartmann article requires other editors to get involved. The power to delist the article does not rest with the whim of one person. We need opinions on the current state of the arricle. The excuses for removing this from .CA get weaker and weaker. Dapi89 (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Closure_of_GA_Review_(and_removal_of_GA_Status)_by_nominator_of_article_for_review. I have queried whether, as nominator, you are sufficiently uninvolved to close the discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigel Ish: if Talk:Erich Hartmann/GA1 were a GA review, it would be a fail. Please also see follow-on discussion at Dapi89's Talk page and Buidhe's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering[edit]

What's wrong with songs by Sabaton? (I mean, as songs, not as serious history).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Nothing's wrong with their music per se. The reason I mentioned them (I assume you're referring to this section) was due to a certain war romanticism that their songs / videos display. They literally have a song about the Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler incident; the video can be viewed here: No Bullets Fly. Turn this Wikipedia article into a video, and you'd get Sabaton's.
Maybe 1% of WW2 was about "aces"; "chivalry", the "unique fraternity of fliers", and some such. The problem, as I see it, is when Wikipedia focuses on such romantic subject matter to the exclusion of all else. Heavy metal ballads are fine, but this is an encyclopedia. I could write reams about this subject, but if you are interested, I really recommend The Myth of the Eastern Front. It's like a version of my user page but written by two academics and ten years prior :). --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Osprey[edit]

Hi K.e.coffman. I just noticed your edit summary for Kurt Meyer. Just a heads up that Osprey are upping their game. I am part way through this and you couldn't invent a more reliable military historian than Dennis Showalter. In the introduction he says that reading Osprey sparked his youthful interest in history and that as a boy he dreamt of being published by them. And the book is not what one might expect from Osprey - a solid and serious treatment. I am aware that you tend to treat sources on a case by case basis anyway, so apologies if this is redundant information. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Sure, Osprey's books should be judged on a case-by-case basis. In Meyer's case, the statement also struck me as undue and weasel'y:
During the course of the war, Meyer came to be regarded as a capable military commander[1]...

References

  1. ^ Hart 2016, p. 14.
"Regarded" by whom? Men under Meyer's command? The author? All historians? Etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I carefully phrased my comment so as not to imply, I thought, that I was questioning that particular edit. I shall be more explicit next time. The phrase jarred a bit when I copy edited, but I don't see it as a copy editor's role to make judgements on sourced material. I am more than happy that it has gone. It was, as I said above, the edit summary that caught my eye: "this claim needs a stronger source that a book from Osprey". I assumed that what you really meant was something like '... than this particular book'. But as I have only today been reading an Osprey book which I feel would pass a RS test I thought it might be helpful to flag that up just in case you meant what you had written literally. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Agreed. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2012-13 Mascom Top 8 Cup[edit]

Hi, I noticed you recently rejected Draft:2012-13_Mascom_Top_8_Cup at AfC. The page needs some work, but I just accepted the 2011-12 Mascom Top 8 Cup and was going to add some references and accept this article. Do you know how to revert from the hard stop on the draft page? It is the most lucrative domestic football tournament in Botswana and receives enough coverage to pass WP:SPORTSEVENT/WP:NSEASONS. SportingFlyer T·C 06:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I reverted the rejection, so it's now back to a draft awaiting review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I'll make sure it gets cleaned up properly. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019[edit]


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your project help last year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thank you & same to you! K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January[edit]

January
Lanzarote
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for improving articles! Did you know that Precious began 7 years ago? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bespoke Post[edit]

Hi, although I know following the standards outlined in the Notability section on Wikipedia doesn't guarantee submission, I'd like to request a re-review since the publications cited in this article do meet the notability criteria. Citations are from major news outlets and trade magazines - and talk in length about the company (they are not small spots).

If you still feel differently, I ask for advice on where to look for sources.GregBrianData (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); the article does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:ORGIND. Please also see WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID; note that paid editing without disclosure is not allowed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GregBrianData: adding ping. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: - are you requesting then that I remove sources cited that are insignifiacnt...that I add new, more significant citation...or both? GregBrianData (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @GregBrianData: Unfortunately, if the subject is not notable, there's nothing but waiting until/if it gains more independent coverage. See Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 16:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: - I guess I'm more so inquiring, then, as to which citations I currently use are notable? I found articles from CBSNews, TechCrunch, Fortune, and WWD. Where do they fall on the spectrum of notability? This article, for example, is a similar company that cites similar sources. Any clarity or resolution you can offer here would be greatly appreciated. GregBrianData (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GregBrianData: Your editing gives the impression of a financial stake in the the subject that you wrote about. Do you have and WP:PAID relationship here, and / or any other WP:COI? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: - Can you elaborate on what gives you that impression? I've been seeing their ads on Facebook virtually every week and was looking to read more about them. I noticed they had coverage, but no Wiki page. Did you see my previous message re "any clarity or resolution you can offer here would be greatly appreciated." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.225.241.238 (talk • contribs)
Please see the advice you've been given here: Review of submission by 104.225.241.238. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Hartmann[edit]

I have raised a question on talk page about one of the authors used in this article. A short glance at the article seems to indicate some very dubious claims sourced to weak or POV sources. Just a quick search on one example immediately came up with statement about "improving facts" and mixing tall stories with actual events.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the subject of Hartmann, when you delist a GA, can you please go to Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare, remove the article and amend the tally? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: thank you; will do. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cora Emmanuel[edit]

Explain to me how she “doesn’t” meet NMODEL or have reliable sources when her entire career was profiled by Vogue Paris, and was inverviewed by American Vogue, Interview Magazine, and The Cut about her career who pointed out her work, while independent sources verified what they said? Is Vogue not a reliable source for models all of a sudden? 🤔 Is a Chanel campaign not notable anymore? Make it make sense. Trillfendi (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: I believe you are referring to https://www.vogue.com/article/model-wall-cora-emmanuel -- this is an interview and not sufficient for establishing notability. The other sources are primary and / or passing mentions. you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk; please link this discussion if you do. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s ironic you say that; earlier in the month there was a volatile debate over model Kätlin Aas’s proposed deletion, who had absolutely no significant coverage and really 1 job that could count as notability for a model, but people dug 6ft for random “model wall” interviews they desperately claimed contributed to notability and basically depicted me as a bitter hag for trying to point out the hypocrisy of it and the fact that it doesn’t work like that. Nothing they produced went beyond a paragraph or even one sentence. They claimed the bare minimum was enough. So that proved to me the goal posts are moved for who they want to move it for. Basically, people who follow fashion know Emmanuel is a notable model. I even see her ads at my local train station. But her sources are almost in the same circumstance as Aas right now, except Emmanuel has much more significant coverage out there. Anyway, thanks for your input. Trillfendi (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trillfendi: you are welcome to resubmit and / or ask for a second opinion at the helpdesk: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Please also see WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID"[edit]

Please refrain adding unfounded insinuations to your comments like you added at Draft:Momentus_X1 — Sbsail talk 04:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbsail: I apologise for my rejection message having come across the wrong way. The subject is still not notable though. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm doing this right...Charlotte Stokely[edit]

Sorry, never done this before but I THINK you're the person who deleted porn actress Charlotte Stokely's page? Anyway I know "significant awards" is part of the criteria? She just won AVN Girl-Girl Performer of the Year tonight, and this year also won XBIZ Girl-Girl Performer of the Year and was a Penthouse Pet of the Year this year. Does that make her more eligible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.32.133 (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Other recent awards for Charlotte Stokely: 2019 Adult Entertainment News Girl-Girl Performer of the Year, 2018 XRCO Girl-Girl Performer of the Year, 2018 NightMoves Girl-Girl Performer of the Year Fan Voting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.32.133 (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curious if you've heard of...[edit]

this? GABgab 16:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: I've not heard about the book, but obviously I've heard of the subject. Paul Hanebrink looks like a well-qualified author. Is this the feedback you were looking for, or was it something else? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to make a recommendation - I was very pleased to see a full-length study on this subject. GABgab 16:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralizationsAreBad: Thank you. Yes, that's an insiduous myth; I have a few Wiki examples of the "Jew-Bolshevik-Partisan" construct at User:K.e.coffman#"Ah, partisanen!", including a hoax caption. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) Interesting, using te Marx's quote as the title. Does it have special meaning in the context, or is the author using it—say—ironically, or perhaps tongue-in-cheek? Jst out of curiousity. ——SerialNumber54129 17:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Interesting, I did not know that it was a quote from Marx. I found the following: "When Karl Marx famously proclaimed in 1848 that “a specter is haunting Europe,” he immediately gave it a name—the specter of communism. Today a specter is again haunting Europe, but (as perhaps befits a spectral presence) it does not have so clear an identity." Source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is an interesting connection comparison. While you're here—What about an A-class review next...?! It seems odd that it's ncessary, but. ——SerialNumber54129 13:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: I agree; the process seems overly regimented. Especially when the MILHIST A-class requirements state: "The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality." (Source: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review). If the article fails a GAR, it's surely not close to featured article quality. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Regimented"...very apt  :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:LearnUpon[edit]

Hi; can you lay out for me why the articles for other LMS (DoceboLMS in particular) are considered notable enough to remain when my article about LearnUpon has been removed? Neither the products nor the companies are very different.

Lmsmaster (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmsmaster: By clicking on the red link LearnUpon, you can see that the page has been deleted from Wikipedia multiple times, including via a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearnUpon. Please also see the advice you've been given at the helpdesk: Review of submission byLmsmaster. Per WP:PAID, you need to comply with the disclosure requirements, if applicable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Click Aviation Network[edit]

Hi, thank you for your feedback on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Click_Aviation_Network. The initial article was deleted, so I've recreated another article keeping in mind of the earlier concerns. and looking forward to your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmukisa (talk • contribs) 09:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianmukisa: the page does not meet WP:CORP; significant WP:RS coverage not found. It's a non-viable draft, unfortunately. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2019/January&oldid=1146340534"