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

Polemic user subpage
Hi. I'm asking you to delete this subpage: User:K.e.coffman/My_allegedly_problematic_behaviour with.

WP:POLEMIC states that: Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

Please see a recent MfD about a similar subpage: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MrX/w. In it, it was decided that the userpage can stay only for a duration needed for gathering evidence. Since yours has existed for months and you did not use any of it in the ArbCom case, it's not permitted by the user page policy in my view. If you want to keep the page, you could re-create it and remove mentions of the users and diffs. Otherwise, a MfD discussion is probably needed. Regards, --Pudeo (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comparison with 's case is unwarranted. Coffman's page is clearly meant as a humorous reflection on his wiki-encounters, and even tagged as such. There is no apparent grudge or intent to pursue any action against anybody. — JFG talk 13:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See the diffs especially at the bottom of the page. They're clearly from hostile disputes in topic area, not humorous ones, and "collations of diffs" are specifically prohibited by WP:POLEMIC. In my opinion, he can keep the page if he removes the diffs and mentions who said what. --Pudeo (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Past disputes may have been hostile, although those cases seem relatively mild to my blasé eyes. In any case, referenced disputes were firmly buried and memorialized for fun. What purpose would it serve to sever the links to actual edits by diffs? Then Coffman may be accused of romanticizing his critics' comments, and that would look worse than the current state of affairs. The only part that may be stale and uninteresting is User:K.e.coffman/IP Tracker; I would support erasing that unless the most recent entries are promptly used in vandalism or socking reports. — JFG talk 15:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Comparison with MrX's case is unwarranted... There is no apparent grudge" Nice. @. - MrX 🖋 16:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "...There is no apparent grudge" Yes, that is a big difference. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 18:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The page User:K.e.coffman/My allegedly problematic behaviour has not been updated in over a year & no one else expressed concerns. I prefer to keep this page. Separately, Arbcom didn't seem too interested in my user pages either. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, although one ArbCom member did cite your userpage as problematic in the proposed decision votes. --Pudeo (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:K.e.coffman/My allegedly problematic behaviour. Regards, --Pudeo (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

D'Souza
Please self-revert. There is a discussion taking place on the content and it is the norm to not revert content being challenged/discussed while discussion re: inclusion is still taking place. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You recently added content: ; (B). It was challenged and removed (R). There's now discussion on the Talk page (D). So what's the problem? --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion started before your removal, that's the problem. Plus, doing so and doubling down on it now really does look like WP:DISRUPTION as well as WP:POKE.  Having a civil discussion that's productive is more important than removal of the content.  Don't forget that there is no hurry here as Wikipedia isn't on a WP:DEADLINE.  If you want to take part in the discussion, great, but you really do need to self-revert.  To keep things WP:CIVIL, of course.  Reverting now doesn't look very civil to me.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 18:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding how WP:BRD works. I joined the discussion on Talk page and explained my reasoning. Don't forget that there is no hurry here as Wikipedia isn't on a WP:DEADLINE, so if your addition was a valid one, the discussion will bear it out. If you want to take part in the discussion, great, but you really do need to stop bothering people on their talk pages. To keep things WP:CIVIL, of course. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion on the presence of the content started before you disruptively reverted the same content out. That's a WP:JERK and WP:BATTLE/WP:POKE move.  FYI: WP:BRD isn't policy and I understand how it works just fine.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Accusing people of WP:JERK and WP:BATTLE/WP:POKE does not sound very WP:CIVIL to me. And OR cited to Rush Limbaugh -- you considered that an appropriate addition to the article?
 * Again, I explained my reasoning on the Talk page: Talk:Dinesh_D%27Souza; I stand by my edit. Bottom line, your addition was reverted; now it's time for discussion, not for throwing around accusations and harassing other editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) No one's being harassed and no one is a victim; (2) What you did was a WP:JERK move and started the dissembling of civility and did constitute WP:POKE as well as establish WP:BATTLE; (3) It's clear you're digging your heels in an standing by your edit, regardless of the attempt from me to appeal to your WP:COMMONSENSE and the better editing angels of your nature. So be it.  The downward spiral of Wikipedia as a functional community continues.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 20:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clear you're persisting with your accusations and unreasonable demands, regardless of my attempts to explain the edits to you in good faith, i.e. . Sigh... Please heed your own advice, especially in re: WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPTIVE. Since you also mentioned WP:JERK, here's some advice from the essay that you may benefit from following:
 * Telling someone "don't be a jerk" is generally wrong — especially if it's true. It upsets the other person and reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say.
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't clear. My post re: WP:JERK wasn't me calling you a jerk.  As I said above, what you did was a "jerk move".  I was commenting on what you did, the behavior, and how it appeared, not about you personally.  I've never thought of you as a jerk, doubt if I ever would.  In all honesty, when you did revert the content out, I was completely surprised because you were the one who did it.  I never would have expected that behavior from you.  My initial thoughts were that you had to have missed there was a discussion already taking place regarding the content in the lead. When it was clear to me you didn't miss it, that's when I referred to WP:JERK as reference to a behavior ("jerk move"), not a personal attack.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 20:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: My post re: WP:JERK wasn't me calling you a jerk. Some questions,
 * You must have known that WP:JERK links to "Don't be a jerk", but you did not mean to call me a "jerk"?
 * Do you consider "a WP:JERK move" civil? Not a personal attack?
 * And finally, you don't feel the need to apologise, not even a little bit? To keep things WP:CIVIL, of course. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, I was not calling you a jerk (didn't I already say that more than once above?)
 * I consider what I said to be a commentary on behavior and not in the least uncivil or a personal attack because I know that when I wrote it, there was no incivility in my motive nor was I attempting to personally attack you.
 * I find it strange to apologize for something that was never meant to be uncivil or a personal attack, however, if it will make you feel better than my honest explanation has, then I apologize for hurting your feelings (that's what's happened, right?) -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 21:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read somewhere that you self-identify as an aspie, but c'mon, can you be that clueless? There's no incivility in my motive when I say this, as a reasonable person can interpret your actions as trolling. Especially, when you come to my talk page with mentions of "WP:CIVILITY" and how you did not "expect that behavior from [me]". You may also want to stop following Snoogans, because it does look like WP:HARASSMENT. Your excessive postings & templated messages on his TP come across as WP:POKING with the the intend to irritate rather than solve a dispute. So please take my advice as your actions are disruptive. And please don't use "WP:JERK" or "WP:JERK move" because they are the same thing, and neither is civil. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Self-identify"? Uh, no.  It's called an official diagnosis.
 * As to being "that clueless" -- yes, absolutely. It's part of being on the autism spectrum.  If you're not familiar with the many aspects of it, maybe you should read some on it before making insulting statements like that.
 * "neither is civil" If you say so. I happen to disagree because I know what the essay says in total and I know what my intention was. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 22:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, for someone who dishes WP:JERKs so readily, you have a pretty thin skin. I said "self-identify" because we are all anonymous people on the internet. The bottom line is that you cannot use your disability to excuse insulting & harassing others, especially when people try to help you out by pointing out that your comments and actions are inappropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You reverted my response. That's... interesting. I thought we were having a discussion that was going to lead to some understanding. Now I'm sadly starting to see you in a different light. Yikes. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it seemed pointless to engage in further discussion. Let me be direct: when someone reverts you, it means that you've overstayed your welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparent Neo Nazi editor
I remember that you deal with some of this issue of Neo Nazi editors. I take this username as clearly meaning "Heil Hitler". The user's edit history confirms interest in this topic. It is well known that 88 is a Neo Nazi code for HH as in Heil Hitler. Perhaps you could keep an eye on this situation. I tried to report this to administrators but failed to convey how clearly this is a troll or disruptive name. I will take this to Requests for comment/User names if I don't forget after giving this individual "time to respond". —DIYeditor (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know; I commented at the UAA report, which has been reopened. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Tiny's T
It is the back of the T-shirt that is most offensive. https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Tvu1Rryn--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/lth3ml2ohwry5jiim52z.jpg

From source: https://splinternews.com/portland-police-criticized-for-charging-counterproteste-1828115880

2601:601:1900:E990:1831:904B:A04F:28BB (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, "Free helicopter rides" has been a long-term staple of the far-right / alt-right. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Blockstack for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blockstack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Blockstack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for letting me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Vernichtungskrieg translation
FYI, I translated Vernichtungskrieg into English. My German isn't that great and it was machine assisted, so feel free to ruthlessly improve if you desire. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for your work on this; nice job! I had the term red-linked from a few articles, so this is very helpful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

More problematic WWII content
Masha Bruskina, a seventeen-year-old girl who participated in non-violent resistance, was apparently a "Jewish resistance fighter", a "Soviet partisan", and a "Belarusian partisan" Catrìona (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for making the corrections. I have a section dedicated to this phenomenon: User:K.e.coffman. The topic of Masha Bruskina is included three times -- poor child. The more disturbing element was a photo caption replicating verbatim the Nazi 1941 propaganda caption.
 * Also, thank you for creating the redirects to Bandenbekämpfung. The article is quite bare-bones; if you are interested in expanding it, that would be great. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Weasel words in the bio of a convicted Nazi war criminal: his "involvement" in the murder of 335 civilians "while serving in Italy" "led to allegations of war crimes" in Karl Hass Catrìona (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ke, salutes for your valiant efforts! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Allow me to second that. I just read your superb article on the subject, and my hat is off to you. Coretheapple (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you; I appreciate it! K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick question about Talk:Sarah Jeong
Did you mean to have a "not" in your !vote here? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I fixed it now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
I'll try this way. Musdan77 (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for your message; I responded on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Fighter pilot claims tables
Thanks for all the work you've done on removing historical fiction from Luftwaffe biographies. I recently thought of a possible solution for the claims table controversy: moving the claims table and explanation to a separate article, for example List of Erich Hartmann's aerial victory claims. This would be analagous to filmographies and discographies, which are often listed in a separate article from an entertainers biography. A short list of bios which would be suitable for this treatment include Erich Hartmann, Gunther Rall, Otto Kittel, Gerhard Barkhorn, Hans-Joachim Marseille, Johnnie Johnson and Pat Pattle. Since I know you have been active in this area, I wanted to solicit your feedback before proceeding, as well as not knowing the appropriate channel to start a general RFC. Catrìona (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure about these tables being equivalent to "filmographies and discographies", as none of the individual victories is independently notable. Other than that, that's not a bad approach. For any potential RfC, Wikipedia talk:Splitting would be a logical location. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I personally like the idea of equating men killed by one person to artistic or scholarly works. For one thing, murder is not art. For the other, this would give Wehraboos another angle for venerating their sword-saints. – Vami _IV✠  14:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, as I find these tables to be excessive amounts of information and what I would term as "inappropriate trophy rooms"; see a related section on my user page: User:K.e.coffman. You might want to raise the issue at WT:MILHIST; e.g.: WikiProject Military history/Content guide. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How should I go about this? – Vami _IV†  20:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you find the tables to be non-neutral, then Neutral point of view/Noticeboard would be a good place to start a discussion. If they are excessive (indiscriminate amounts of information), then perhaps Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Hope this is helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I remember a MilHist discussion on the issue, although I don't think it ever actually resolved anything. I don't really care if it's a separate list or not, so long as I don't have to look at it. So a collapsed table works for me as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll assemble my case for this. – Vami _IV†  09:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * good luck! K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)