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

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, I appreciate it. Enough spam to go around for all of us :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate it! K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 17 Milhist article reviewing

 * I appreciate it. Thanks for keeping track of all of the reviews. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

WWII related pages
Sorry for reverting your edits, but these pages look to me as valid and informative pages. If disagree, please nominate them for AfD. Then they can be deleted per WP:Consensus. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People: Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross recipients, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists. Does this address your concerns? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your proposal was extremely complicated. According to the closer, "KC recipients who do not meet WP:SOLDIER #2-8 and who do not meet the GNG should be redirected ...". I am sorry, but subjects of these pages look to me as people satisfying WP:GNG. If you insist, please nominate them for AfD. I think they will be kept. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The proposal was quite simple really: do the subjects meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG? I did not find these subject meeting GNG, which I noted on the related Talk pages, such as here: Talk:Wilhelm_Moritz_(Luftwaffe_officer).
 * My experience has been that non senior commanders, even if highly decorated, usually lack sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The discussion at Notability:People arrived at the same conclusion. The types of sources used in the articles that have been redirected fall roughly in these categories:
 * Phaleristics-oriented catalogues of award winners and their respective decorations; I consider these to be primary sources and not sufficient for establishing notability.
 * Landser-pulp literature, also known as Landser Hefte, which aims to heroicise the military men and strays into historical fiction while doing so.
 * Deliberate historical distortions, published by authors such as the fringe Richard Landwehr and various authors affiliated with HIAG, the post-war Waffen-SS lobby group in West Germany. In the German language, these works are generally published by far-right and extremist publishers such as the, the Arndt Verlag, and the , among others.
 * In North America, Group 2 & 3 titles are being published by J.J. Fedorowicz and Schiffer Publishing. Some eventually find their way into more widely available publications by Osprey, for example.
 * I might eventually nominate these articles for deletion; there's a list here: Subsequent AfDs. For now, just wanted to share where these redirects are coming from. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is an argument to delete/redirect article Fritz_Frauenheim (for example): the content was mostly described on pages like German submarine U-25 (1936) and German submarine U-21 (1936). Was the commander notable enough to keep his page? I would suggest to keep, but I may be wrong. Let's try this one page on the AfD, and if it will be deleted I would self-revert on all other similar pages. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * While i agree that Pour le Mérite Verlag and some others are not unbiased sources, calling J. J. Fedorowicz as publisher rightwing extremist or naming them together with publishers linked to a political party like Pour le Mérite is incorrect. J. J. Fedorowicz is used by the german Institut für Zeitgeschichte which is a neutral worldwide respected group regarding WW II research. May i ask for the source labeling J. J. Fedorowicz as a biased far-right/extremist publisher? If they're labelled like this by this "source": i would remove it, as this book is not considered a reliable source by the IFZ and other worldwide respected historical research organisations. ChartreuxCat (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou
Thankyou for all the good work you have done, especially in AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of primary sources (e.g. game materials) in articles.
Sorry for taking a bit to respond, I almost missed the query since we've disputed the same point across multiple AfDs. Game material falls under WP:QS as non-independent, since it's by the game company selling the product/game/supplement/whatever. WP:SELFPUB lists a five-point test for using questionable sources: of the five, only the last, "the article is not based primarily on such sources", is really at issue in most of the NN game content, and that can usually be remedied by cutting down plot summaries. The second policy permitting use of primary sources is, unsurprisingly WP:PRIMARY which notes "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

NPP
I know the AfD desk and creating content is more your thing, but you might consider requesting the NPR user right and having a whirl at our lovely backlog. Your knack for finding sourcing and spotting promotionalism would be an asset. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I had looked into NPP a while ago, but I did not seem to be able to get the Page Curation tool to work for me. Would I need to be granted the NPP status to be able to use it? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, just make a request at PERM. Read the tutorial at WP:NPP and let them know it when you apply. A lot of people prefer Twinkle, but the nice thing about the tool is that it lets you offer feedback to the creator, and the user right allows you to mark things as reviewed so it is out of the 21k page backlog. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * do you have any thoughts or guidance on moving questionable articles to draft? Is this encouraged / discouraged / up to the reviewing editor? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The general ideal is: articles that are unsuitable for Wikipedia that can't be improved by any means gets tagged through one of the deletion processes. Things that might with improvement meet our inclusion criteria but at the time of creation are unsuitable for main space get moved to draft and sent to AfC. Things that have issues that can be dealt with in main space get maintenance tags. If the article is in decent shape and doesn't have any glaring issues beyond that which can be fixed through normal editing, it gets the green check mark with no tags. I personally wouldn't move anything to draft that would not be part of the new page triage system because its a form of soft deletion and really should be discussed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you deal with all the articles about subjects of unclear notability for which sources may be in local languages? This has got to be the hardest part of NPP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is difficult. If it is a corporation or NGO, I look at the sourcing in the article and evaluate it based on WP:ORGDEPTH. I then do a search on Google News. Usually the name stays the same unless the language is non-Latin characters. If its good or only has maintenance issues, I mark it reviewed and/or tag. If it meets one of the speedy deletion criteria, tag with one of those tags. If it looks non-controversial to delete but doesn't meet CSD, PROD. If I think a PROD might be corrected, I then send to AfD. If the article in its current state fails WP:V and it is sub-stub, but appears that it could be notable, I send it to AfC. This deals with about 1/2 of non-English speaking articles. A significant portion of the rest are pop stars and entertainers, which I am not that useful for in English, so I let others review. Corporations are relatively easy to judge, people are harder. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Appealing an editing restriction
I was thinking it might be time to appeal the editing restriction placed on me a few months ago that makes it so I cannot nominate more than one article for AfD in any 24-hour period. I am not sure how to appeal it though. Could you give me some helpful pointers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for reaching out -- I'd be happy to offer some suggestions, since I recently participated in a thread where the OP has asked for a similar restriction to be lifted; link: . The first questions were: "Why do you want the topic ban lifted? What has it prevented you from doing that would have benefited Wikipedia?"


 * I've looked at your AfD nominations and it looks that you've nominated only a couple of articles per month since the restriction was put in place: . I think that's a problem for two reasons: (1) see the questions above; (2) the optics of many red cells are not favourable for your case.


 * I would suggest going back to nominating articles, even though it's probably annoying to do so with the restriction in place. May I suggest CAT:NN? Plenty of non notable subject to go around :-). Perhaps revisit in a couple of months. Hope this helps! K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A gift
You are not supposed to empty a category before nominating it for deletion per WP:CFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message -- I did not realise that emptying a category before nomination was a big deal; now I know. I left additional comments at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_14. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And you familiarize yourself with WP:TPO and what it says about editing other user's comments. You are allowed to delete this post if you want....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

97.98.86.66 at ANI
Darmokand (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know and thanks for starting the discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Operation Spring Awakening
Hey there, got your thanks, went and saw your contributions, sent you thanks, yada yada... anyway had been reading on mobile so longer edits are a PITA, but wanted to do a lot of what you ended up doing. Always appreciate nice, clean wording in articles, so wanted to drop an actual note real quick, so kudos! dkzero 03:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

 * No, thank you for volunteering. I heard that the RfA was record-breaking -- congrats! K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Panzer Ace" revision
Dear K.e.coffman: I am writing this on your Talk page because I want to question your reverting of my edits on the '"Panzer Ace" in popular culture" article. This article has many flaws- starting with the fact that it doesn't really deal with Panzer Aces in popular culture but rather tries to denigrate Panzer aces and question why they are popular. Basically this article is a one-sourced editorial by Steven Zaloga- a weird sort of picture book writer/defense think tanker and general US Army propagandist. The point of the article seems to be to claim that German tankers aren't deserving of their obvious popularity among tank buffs because their tanks were too good and some of their exploits may have been exaggerated! "Panzer Aces" should be about the men themselves and why they are the rock stars of tank history- kill numbers and superior equipment and training. The fact is that any unbiased tank warfare historian recognizes the inferiority of American tanks (until the Pershing) and that the meat and potatoes of tank warfare happened in the East between Germans and Russians. I will try again when I have time to correct some of the obvious editorializing in this article or else try to figure a way to make the article neutral instead of biased. Thanks much, JeffMakumbe (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted this POV-pushing material. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for your message. I commented at Talk:"Panzer_ace"_in_popular_culture. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Opening an AfD with a keep recommendation
Hello K.e.coffman,

I would like to ask for your advice on how to proceed with Picaboo after the no-consensus close. If you and the other editors involved are interested I would like to open a second AfD. I still think it meets the requirements for inclusion. If it does it should be kept and if it does not it should be deleted. I think we should be able to reach a consensus, therefore I would like to debate with you and the other experienced editors that recommended its deletion weather notability is met and when a source or an article should be considered promotional. I think it could be a very interesting discussion, at least for me, however, I am not sure if it is correct for the editor that opens the AfD to !vote for it to be kept. I would really appreciate your advice on this. Best regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't close AfDs so I don't know how admins close those started with a "keep" rationale. You might want to enquire with a closing admin. In general, I'd probably give it about a month until a new AfD; otherwise, it might feel that we are re-arguing the old one. Hope this helps! K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your advice is indeed very helpful. My idea was to continue the argument of the closed one to fully understand the rationale from the very experienced people that think it should be deleted, but I can see now that that opening a new AfD for that reason would clearly be a mistake. I think it makes more sense to open a discussion on the talk page of the article itself. I will invite the people involved in the AfD. If you have the time, I will really appreciate your input. Best regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Reinhard Peters
I just created Reinhard Peters (conductor), dab because Reinhard Peters is a redirect. Now you say that man is not notable. Should the (unlinked) redirect then point to the conductor? Or the conductor even moved? Article history? In German, only the conductor has an article, the name is a dab with two red links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I moved the page, leaving the spot open for the conductor's article. Please feel free to move it to Reinhard Peters. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, moved. Will have to change the links, but have no time right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Afghan Knights
You have a point. Although cheap films sometimes become "cult", this one didn't. I agree to a deletion. NordhornerII (talk) I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 08:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)