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

T&F
K.e.coffman: I hate to bother you, but could you let me know if you have received access to Taylor & Francis yet? I am having trouble reaching my contact there and want to make sure things are running smoothly after they receive the applications. Can you also give me an approximate date when you received access, if you did? Thanks. AnthroMimus (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks for the follow-up -- no, I've not heard from T&F. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that Wikipedia's contact at T&F is no longer there and no replacement has been made. "We're working on it," as they say, and I'll keep you posteed.. AnthroMimus (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Winged Blades Godric 11:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is w.r.t to this AfD that you commented upon and supported the merge. Winged Blades Godric 11:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note. I responded on the relevant discussion page. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Promotionalism?
Hi,

You left a vote on a AfD & said its promotionalism. If you think THIS is promotionalism I wonder what you would say if you saw the first draft of this :) It was nominated for speedy deletion & I had to make quick edits to get that fixed. I was & am still under the impression because of notability that you have to the list achievements of the subject? Isn't that right? In the first draft I jotted down whatever information I came across reading about the subject online but you should see the first draft, I didn't cite enough references & because of that, I had to remove most of the information & changed the verbiage a great deal. Primarily because I was clueless that I have to use a very neutral tone. So kindly tell me now, how does this extremely watered down version is promotional? Watered down as in like, I have completely changed the language & only added information which I could back with reliable sources?

I want to benefit from your wisdom & help me make this page better. Looking forward to hearing back from you.

Thank you very much for your time.Thecapital15 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * When the subject of the article is not notable, the only reason for the article to exist is to promoted the subject or to serve as a fan page. More at Articles for deletion/Zunera Mazhar. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * oh ok, I actually saw her at a party and people were saying that she is a pageant winner & is a fashion blogger. So, I went on a stalking spree & realized that there is no wikipedia page & I had read her about so much already, i figured why not put that information on a wikipedia page myself, always wanted to make one, so decided to put all that "research" :) to some good use. I honestly had no idea about notability or reliable sources etc, it was only after the page was nominated for speedy deletion I quickly started going through the guidelines to see what they were about. SO, frankly, from the little research that I did, I bumped into pretty reliable sources CNN ABC Express Tribune(sister publication of Newyork Times in Pakistan) & Pakistan Today which is US equivalent of Politico. Why aren't they enough like how many reliable sources a person needs to be notable because from what I figured that is the criteria? I am honestly new to this whole thing & I really don't want all the hours that I have put into this page go to waste. So I would really appreciate if you help me figure out ways how I can improve this page & address your concerns re promotionalism.Thecapital15 (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, you've created a fan page. Please review WP:SIGCOV -- passing mentions do not count. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

well :) yeah, maybe it was a fan page you should see the first draft but I purged all the details which came off as fan page-ish or promotional not because I wanted to create a fan page but because I wasn't aware what kind of language I am supposed to use. From my understanding, there are plenty of WP:RELIABLE WP:PRIMARY & WP:SECONDARY sources quoted on the page & most are mainstream WP:NEWSORG of not one but two different countries(U.S & Pakistan). According to this guideline -> WP:NEXIST the notability clearly exists as there are numerous WP:RELIABLE sources quoted.

So when there are references of 5 mainstream media organizations - isn't that enough? Like I am trying to understand why some of the fellow wikipedians think that this is promotionalism? Why people get these vibes from it? is it because people are always spamming, so you have to view all the pages skeptically? Like I still want to believe that if you think something isn't right then tell me what it is & i will fix it. But how come deletion will achieve anything? like aren't we supposed to add info to this platform? I am trying really hard to reach out & find some consensus i have been making edits after edits to make this page meet the guidelines that are required for a page to be worthy of this platform. All the objections which were made by fellow editors on the AfD page, i addressed all of them & tried to build consensus. Is there anything you can suggest that i do which will help in building consensus with you? I hope you can guide. & please I am not arguing just trying to putting forth my understanding of things. & frankly just trying to learn from your experience.Thecapital15 (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

German fighter aces / knight cross - procedural suggestion
Hi! I though it would be better to discuss here instead on each page. We obviously disagree on the redirect here (in my view, many of these 40+ kill aces meet SOLDIER(4) due to taking out more than half an Aviation regiment (Soviet Union) and many (at least those I looked at last night) have SIGCOV in several books (even though it isn't always in the article). A Knight's cross might not make someone notable by itself, but it doesn't make one non-notable).

Procedurally - I suggest that instead of deleting the entire page and leaving a redirect (which is rather equivalent to a delete)- one by one - I suggest you nominate them in batches to AfD - choosing similar aces in terms of kill count range (e.g. 40-60, 60-80, etc.) and amount of sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for doing the GA Review for Talk:Dezinformatsia (book)/GA1. I agree with everything you said, and so I just implemented all of your helpful recommendations. I responded there, perhaps you could revisit ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I've made updates at the review page. On the "Reception" section, I've reached out for a 2nd opinion, since it's my first GA review (link). I hope to get a response soon. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed primary cite. It was only there for helpful reference anyways, I used all secondary sources for when I wrote the actual summary myself. Sagecandor (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No matter what you decide, please don't close it just yet if you are not going to pass it. You are a good reviewer, and I'll work on it more with you soon. Sagecandor (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I don't plan to close the review at the moment. The article certainly has potential. If you'd like I can email you a couple of reviews; I have access via my library system. For example: Would you be interested? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewed Work(s): Dezinfomatsia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy. by Richard H. Shultz and Roy Godson. Review by: Ellen Mickiewicz. Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 99, No. 4 (Winter, 1984-1985), pp. 770-771. Published by: The Academy of Political Science. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2150750
 * YES ! Please email me !!! Sagecandor (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, I emailed you. You'd need to respond so that I can send you attachments. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Sagecandor (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Added to article, can you revisit? Sagecandor (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the article! I passed it for GA. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Deprod of Polish Development Fund
This merits AFD at least. There is some coverage in Polish media. I've added COI template, which is likely justified per your comment, but the entity itself is likely notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Antifaschistische aktion
It's a well known fact that at least swedish and german AFA/Antifa have bonds to the "autonomous" subculture. The swedish security police confirms it by calling the most criminally active part of the far-left "the autonous movement" (here's a link to their homepage who is having a PDF which you can translate with google translate http://www.sakerhetspolisen.se/publikationer/rapporter-amnesvis/politisk-extremism/-valdsam-politisk-extremism.html ) and the german "Verfassungsschutz" do also confirm this ties (https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/service/glossar/antifa-autonome ). So why are you taking this pieces of information away from the article about Antifa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12Dagge (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "So why are you taking this pieces of information away from the article about Antifa?" That happens when an article may, or does, have political overtones. In those situations, Wikipedia favors politically left-wing views and positions, as it ascribes credibility only to left-of-center sources and references. Its various editors then stifle non-left-wing views, sources, and references by invoking, usually erroneously, various of its editing guidelines. Some commonly-invoked ones are: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:WEIGHT. Threats of blocking are also not uncommon. Unfortunately for all of us, Wikipedia is not the unbiased, encyclopedic reference database it imagines itself to be. Hope this helps. Hackercraft (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

False accusation
Your accusation is false, I have never written anything you accuse me. Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)