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

Draft:Choi Nakyoon
Hi, I made my first wikipedia posting few months ago and wish to clarify one factual issue related to its rejection. I don't care anymore at this point whether the draft gets rejected or not, but I wish to resolve one misunderstanding which was stated about the reason of rejection. I cannot accept your argument until this issue is clearly understood and accepted by the reviewer. A clarification is needed on the misunderstanding which you had on me as a writer. How do I prove that I have zero affiliation with the person I wrote about? Do I need to create a sandbox page about my identity? Why did you assume that I must have prepared the article for the sake of commercial interest or promotional activities?

I have no idea how you could pre-assume (without even asking the writer) that I may have personal relations with the person I wrote about. This can even sound like a personal insult to a writer who just wanted to make attempt on writing the article for the first time. I apologize if my citations were not good enough, but you cannot assume that I may have a personal relation with the person I wrote about. I don't even personally know him. Of course I don't work for the media company and there is no way he can pay me when he doesn't even know me. Besides, I am an outsider who once took a course and studied Hallyu industry and someone who was curious about writing wikipedia article drafts and just wanted to give it a try through trials and errors. My personal goal was to increase English wikipedia pages for the existing Korean wikipedia pages. In that way, more English readers can have access to Asian wikipedia pages (perhaps if the English draft is available, then the English writers can also find ways together to fix the reference issue which Korean wikipedia articles hold).

All I tried to do was create an English version of his already-existing Korean wikipedia page. I do not get paid by anyone for this matter, and this is almost a personal insult to me when I have pure interest to contribute as a writer as well, but all I get is a pre-assumed comments filled with injustice.

I am not asking the reviewer to accept the draft because the draft already has a reference issue. I also accept that the submission can be rejected only if it's because of citation issues or because you consider that the person is "not notable", but I can never accept the reviewer's assumption about my purpose and intent of preparing the draft. I have no relation with a person I wrote about. I cannot emphasize enough that I want to know why the reviewer would pre-assume about something that isn't even true at all. What made you think that I must have written about someone I know or for commercial interest?

Please reconsider this issue; I want you to take back what you said about my intent of draft and I hope to cooperate in the most peaceful way and resolve this matter together. Thanks for reviewing and considering this message in advance. Uideyield (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that the subject meets WP:NACTOR. But you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...
... for improving article quality in November! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Skjoldbro (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * a WP:RFC may be a better approach to resolving the dispute about Jodl's signature. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OMG coffman are you ever going to stay out of trouble? Can't you just drink a shot of bourbon and celebrate the Alabama victory like the rest of us normal people? *lesight* Drmies (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm in trouble :). I made a single, brief comment on the article's Talk page: . That's been the extent of my involvement. Although I did feature Jodl on my user page, in this section:
 * Investigative Sub-committee on Abuses of Victor's Justice.
 * Maybe I'll give the topic more attention in the future. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm K.e.coffman with a bit of bad luck I'm getting on ArbCom. Are you sure you don't want to declare your hatred of Auburn and your love of Jalen Hurts AND Tua Tagovailoa here? I know, it's a sportsy thing to do, but we all have to make sacrifices... Drmies (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It cuts more than one way
Some remarks after having skimmed, occasionally raising a quizzical eyebrow, through the extensive (though doubtless and therefore unfortunately not comprehensive) examples on your Main Page. It isn't only Wehrmacht fans and Nazi apologists. Lots of people prefer rattling good stories and sanitised descriptions over hard facts.

(1) I've just watched an American documentary (date uncertain, but narrated by Charlton Heston), according to which "Rommel [in North Africa] had taken a high-velocity 88 anti-aircraft gun and adapted it to anti-tank service, where it was a deadly destructive surprise". It was clearly part of Rommel's genius to realise, as no-one had done before, that 88 AA shells would work equally well as if not better as AP rounds.

Rommel is an interesting example. He is bigged up, perhaps uniquely, by people with several different agendas to push. The Desert Fox, only defeated in North Africa by Monty's superior generalship. Far-sighted defender of the Atlantic Wall, who would have thrown the Allies back into the sea if only he'd been listened to. Opponent of Hitler, a simple soldier, quiet supporter (or perhaps unaware) of the 20 July plot, forced to commit suicide by Nazi grandees. (Oh, and one-time commander of Hitler's bodyguard.)

(2) Robert Henry Cain, VC citation: "On 20th September [1944] a Tiger tank approached the area held by his company and Major Cain went out alone to deal with it armed with a Piat. Taking up a position he held his fire until the tank was only 20 yards away when he opened up. The tank immediately halted and turned its guns on him, shooting away a corner of the house near where this officer was lying. Although wounded by machine gun bullets and falling masonry, Major Cain continued firing until he had scored several direct hits, immobilised the tank and supervised the bringing up of a 75 mm. howitzer which completely destroyed it".

One of the very best VCs, but that citation lies like a bulletin. (1) He didn't start out alone (the PIAT needed two men to work it; his second had been killed early in the action), (2) not every Nazi vehicle with tracks on it in 1944 was a Tiger or even a tank (it was actually a StuG III), and (3) direct hits from a PIAT, a misbegotten idea of a weapon, usually just bounced off (what Cain managed to do was to shoot off a track).

(3) The death of Giovanni Fornasini.

Source 1 (translated from the Italian): "While giving burial (forbidden by the Nazis), to the dead of Casaglia di Caprara, Don Fornasini faced a German officer, openly accusing him of the crimes committed in the area of Marzabotto; the priest was immediately shot down."

Source 2 (translated from the Italian): "For this massacre, he confronted the responsible officer, scolding him bitterly. The German replied: 'Those are lies. Come with me, let us go for an inspection'. Then, having arrived at the place, in the presence of all those corpses, he killed him with a revolver shot to the head."

Source 3 (in English): "The German soldiers grabbed another priest, Father Giovanni Fornasini, and cut off his head."

Source 4 (in English): "When it seemed that the bloody fury of the Germans was placated, the pastor of Sperticano, Don Giovanni Fornasini, went to the San Martino Cemetery on October 13th to give Christian burial to the corpses that has been burned. The stench of decomposing bodies that had been covered with gasoline and set on fire filled the air. At the sight of the terrible spectacle, unaware that he was being observed by an SS captain, Don Fornasini commented 'These were not partisans; only the elderly, women, and children'. The Captain responded, 'Pastor kaput'. The blast of a machine gun ended his life."

Sources 5, 6, and 7 (all in Italian, and clearly independent of each other): "The circumstances of his death are shrouded in mystery."

I prefer even one source, let alone three, saying "no-one knows" over four irreconcilable pieces of fiction. (As if Waffen-SS officers were accustomed to record, or afterwards to regale people with, details of incidents like the Marzabotto massacre.)

There's a perennial tendency to make events look more heroic/splendid/spectacular/pitiable/etc. than they were. Sticking to the facts isn't easy. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"Military historian of the year"
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * On-going discussion here:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.

DYK nomination of Ruth Bettina Birn
Hello! Your submission of Ruth Bettina Birn at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You've helped me with DYK hooks before, so I wonder if you may be able to come up with something punchier? The nom is here: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Bettina Birn and the article is Ruth Bettina Birn. This is a deserving subject, but the best I could come up is was rather bland... I would really appreciate any suggestions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not pieced it into a working hook as of yet, but the threat of libel would be interesting to readers, especially since a reputable historian—Segev—believes her criticisms are well-argued.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How about this: “Did you know... that Ruth Bettina Birn was threatened with legal action by Daniel Goldhagen for her critique of his work Hitler's Willing Executioners?” You could probably form a better sentence, but I think the reviewer will see this as a bit more “hooky”.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Saeed Jafarian
Hello Dear,

My topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saeed_Jafarian rejected by you because of notability I think. But he is a Palme D'ore nominee at Festival de Cannes and many other grade-A festivals like TIFF and AFI Fest, aren't these reasons enough? Losthighway1990 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Notability for creative professionals is demonstrated by wins at competitions, not just nominations. I thus do not consider the subject to be notable under WP:CREATIVE. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, but first please provide disclosures, if needed, of any conflict of interest or paid editing. Please see User talk:Losthighway1990. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

For your wall of distortionist shame
Hey K.e.coffman, take a peek at - diff1, diff2, and. A higher resolution of the same photo + comments by a museum can be seen - here. If you know a bit of Yiddish/German - it is verifiable by self reading - the first line is "דער טאג וואלן" or "Der Tag Wahlen" - election day. The museum's loose translation (won't dicker with them too much - but seems to me a bit loose) is "The Election of / Delegates / For the people's council / of Western Belarus", and they say this was taken in 1941 right after the German conquest. This was presented on Wikipedia "Banner in Yiddish welcoming the Soviet forces in 1939. In the background the Catholic Church of St. Roch in Białystok (Soviet photo)" - which seems like Żydokomuna/Jewish Bolshevism. The file was added to Commons (and I presume to Wikipedia on around the same date) in - and remained on Wikipedia for nearly 3 years. Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Through it seems to be more of an honest mistake. The description is based on which talks about an exhibition of photographs from 1939-1941 related to Soviet propaganda. Until we found a better description, the old one didn't seem wrong. Wall of shame seems more appropriate for purposeful misinformation rather than accidental. In either way, thank you Icehwiz for finding a better description and correcting the old misleading one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The TVP3(Bialystok regional) run by Telewizja Polska would seem to be an unlikely source for WWII information - the state broadcaster has hosted openly anti-semitic guests as well as transmitting anti-semitic messages on-air- per themselves due to a "technical glitch". However - the TVP source cited above does not support this was a "Jewish welcome message" or that it was taken in 1939. I will note that before searching for the specific photograph, the description itself was obviously wrong from the composition of the image itself (even if you are unable to make out Yiddish (and it is a tad blurry version of the photo) - the sign is quite obviously not a "welcome message" in its drab black and white glory and in Yiddish no less. A rudimentary understanding of Yiddish/German is sufficient to show that the text on the sign is not a "welcome message"). Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen this image before, in the Białystok Ghetto article, and I recall that the caption did not make sense to me. If the Jews really wanted to welcome the Red Army, they would have written the banner in Russian. The "Jew-Bolshevik-Partisan" construct is something I've come across elsewhere; see samples at User:K.e.coffman.
 * I've seen some creative captions, too; for example:, in Sonderaktion 1005. This belongs in User:K.e.coffman; as in: Look at these well-dressed Sonderkommandos, relaxed and casually standing about, posing for photographs, while the camp is in operation. Almost turning victims into perpetrators. Shameful. Please feel free to let me know about additional diff; my wall can always use more. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * By looking at the article history, I realised that I had edited the page and that the caption had been even worse: "Jewish welcoming banner for the Soviet forces invading Poland." (!) Towards the middle of the page here: . K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Aha - but in your same edit you removed "following mock elections conducted in the atmosphere of coercion and terror." - in wikivoice, which sort of made the caption make sense (as the image is actually an election notice for the People's Council..... However if we view the elections themselves (yes, sham elections as everywhere in the Soviet Union) as an instrumemt of terror - with a little bit of SYNTH and OR one could get to that caption).Icewhiz (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The original caption was not related to the elections in any way: Jewish welcoming banner for the Soviet forces invading Poland. In the background the Catholic Church of St. Roch in Białystok (Soviet photo). It even got the source of the photo wrong, claiming that it was a "Soviet photo". In general, I suspect that 99.5% of Wikipedia's readers and editors would not know what the banner said. I changed the pejorative-sounding "Jewish banner" to "banner in Yiddish" based on my readings on the topic of Bialystock, from which I knew that the city's Jewish population was almost exclusively Yiddish-speaking, to the point that Zionist organisations there published their newspapers in Yiddish, not Hebrew. If you see any more creative captions, please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Really...
I always admired how you cut through bull-stuff in some contexts (re: your inspiring c/e of various Nazi-whitewashing, etc.). Which is why I am surprised we seem to disagree on the 'Jewish Paradise' issue. The 1606 poem was undeniably xenophoic (including being antisemitic). But the poem is fringe, it is forgotten, and all that remains is the proverb (and its shorter 'Jewish Paradise') section. I've cited plenty of sources, and the use of either is generally neutral, as in, non-malicious and referring to the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. Of course, we can find some instances of those terms being abused by antisemites, but 1) I cannot find any academic source discussing the use of those constructs by antisemites, so all we have are some primary refs to hate speech and 2) those constructs are reasonably often used by academics, who clearly use them in a neutral way (if not, in fact, a way that's positive towards the Jews, as in, referring to their Golden Age). There's the bit about the saying being an exaggeration/hyperbole, which the article notes as well, but I'd really appreciated it if you tell me what I am missing here? I explained this issue on talk in more detail, but IMHO the vast majority of reliable (academic) sources uses the proverb/two word construct neutrally. How such a construct can be considered antisemitic? (Again, I am sure it is abused in some hate speech, but so can be everything else, and hate speech is not a reliable source, not until it is analyzed by academics). A single minor scholar is grinding an ax because she has issues with a POLIN Museum and criticized the title of their exhibition; no other scholar seems to support her claim about those constructs (through some, rightly, agree re the original 1606 poem, as do I, and as the article clearly states). Seriously, one of the world's largest museums of Jewish history wouldn't use an anti-semitic phrase, without any explanation, on its pages/exhibitions:. And it's not like POLIN is not aware of Janicka's criticism (or criticisms, she effectivelly called it an antisemitic museum, she really has an issue with that institution...); they have generated a few more academic papers, replies from POLIN director/staff, which essentially boils down to 'criticism of this phrase is incorrect and out of context', which is why the museum has retained this phrase, and nobody else has repeated this criticism (Polin won a prestigious Europen-wide museum award, the European Museum of the Year Award, since: ). Ditto for media, no media, Polish or international, have deemed this criticism to be justified. Just recently a Jewish-American newspaper run a nice report on the museum, and guess what? They even explicitly refer to the Jewish Paradise construct in a positive way: "The 'Paradisus Iudaeorum' gallery, part of the core exhibition at Warsaw's POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, examines a 'golden age' for Jews in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th and 17th centuries." in the image caption, and they don't even bother to mention any criticism of that phrase. So, are you going to say that the AJP is using anti-semitic language now? PS. BBC used it a way back:, so did the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Hardly anti-semitic venues (if it was really an anti-semitic slur, you'd think someone would point it out to them and they'd revise their articles...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"Paradise for the Jews" @ DYK
You have asked for my opinion; I responded on my Talk page as well as at DYK. It's apparently not what you expected to hear, so let me be more direct in how I convey this. Accusations of "ranting" in response to good-faith concerns are not appropriate. Likewise, continued advocacy with the aim of getting an antisemitic-sounding saying onto the mainpage comes across as off. Other editors said as much, i.e. here:.

Re: your comment that "the academic debate about this topic, as well as whether this phrase is anti-semitic, or much more nuanced, is ongoing, and any attempt to simply it is not helpful". I agree with this point, but it also underlies the issue with the hook. The available word count does not offer sufficient space for nuance, which the topic requires. It also seems that the positive connotations apply to the two-word phrase. Attempts to "simplify" the article into a hook & use the entire saying evince responses such as: "Who the hell is responsible for this potential P.R. clusterfuck?". It would not be a good look for Wikipedia if more people come away with this impression.

Perhaps you are simply too invested in the article to be able to hear the feedback you are getting. That said, I grant that there's a chance that I'm wrong in how I perceived the hook. A discussion at NPOVN may be benefitial to get wider perspectives. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you mind point out which reliable source refer to the proverb as anti-semitic (anti-Jewish)? Not, I repeat, an anti-semitic source which uses the phrase, since this is a spurious relations (again, one might as well argue that the use of the word "Jew" in an antisemitic canard like "all Jews are [something bad]" means the very word "Jew" is antisemtic and controversial). Right now we have sources and a consensus that the original 1606 text was xenophobic and antisemitic, and a single source making a generalized claim that the two-word construct "Jewish Paradise" is anti-semitic (and I argue that it is a fringe claim, plus that the author refers to the original poem and just uses the two-word construct as a reference to it). I will also note that exaggeration =/= (always) antisemitism (unless you have a source that says otherwise); we already note the proverb is an exaggeration (but it doesn't make it antisemitic, at least, not without a source saying so). Again, I ask, which reliable source discusses the antisemitism of the proverb? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I invite you to read my comments above: . You have not addressed any of my points or acknowledged the feedback you got so far, yet you want more information. Are you saying that all these other editors are wrong? --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

(EC)::: I would just like to amplify and clarify my original concerns with this DYK nomination. Before I begin, I must say that I have often agreed with your editing and have never had issues with you. For clarification, I edited until September with the user name 'Irondome' so, this is me. Her are some points; These were my main concerns, and I wished to clarify them here. Your colleague, Simon Adler (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * DYK is the place for new, 'immature' articles, which in my opinion should be non-controversial. The intense and detailed discussion regarding specialised and nuanced historical points which it has already generated at the DYK board would indicate that the article was not ripe for DYK, which I believe, is the place for non-contentious work. The placement of this subject matter in a DYK was premature, and not perhaps suited for the typical DYK audience. The article needed to be refined and improved by community discussion.
 * The timing of the DYK was unfortunate, as it would have fallen just 24 hours before the 80th anniversary of Kristallnacht. I believe this would have been insensitive to the feelings of many readers, and more dangerously, would have created potential attention and focus on the project's failings, even if perceived. In my opinion, the timing was insensitive. WP has many enemies, on all spectra. We cannot afford adverse media attention, which was a probability, however remote.
 * This year saw an unpleasant disagreement between Poland, Israel and other nations regarding the Polish Government's legislation on Polish historiography, which obviously focused on the ongoing Polish death camp controversy debates. Personally I think the Polish Government were and are correct to challenge such an inaccuracy, but mutual misapprehensions and subsequent Polish Government legislation created a poor atmosphere, which will take a time for the dust to settle on. This merely gave the perception of an ongoing Jewish-Polish animosity. I am obviously AGF here, but it is the perception and timings which I objected to, and which I felt would inflame in the extreme quarters of all POV's on either 'side'.


 * Dear KEC, I am afraid we are talking past one another, as it is my distinct impression you have not addressed my points or acknowledged feedback. I am not sure which points of you I am ignoring. To be clear, I believe any article can have a neutral hook created for it, no matter how controversial the subject. I still believe that all hooks proposed are pretty neutral, but more could be considered, except nobody is really proposing them. Ex. we could consider a hook along the lines that ...'part of the proverb XYZ used in the Polin Museum exhibition has given raise to a heated debate'. I honestly don't see what's wrong with such hooks. A potential of any PR disaster is a totally ridiculous idea. Aside from NOTCENSORED, whose spirit means we don't give in to pressure not to write about potentially controversial subjects, this is hardly a controversial subject. A few academics exchanged some academic polemic, granted, reasonably heated for academia - but the general media never cared about it. Nobody has so far found a single international, not to mention, Polish news media piece that even discussed this. What kind of controversy could arise from using a neutrally worded hook is beyond me. Even if the hook was non-neutral and biased, such as saying that 'XYZ proverb illustrated that Jews were highly privileged in the PLC', I doubt anyone would notice this outside Wikipedia, but that's a straw man argument, since I and others have tried hard to ensure that both the article and the hook are neutral as much as possible, and not easily misinterpreted. Do let me know if there are any other points you made I somehow missed (if I didn't reply to that in more detail earlier it is TBH because I still consider it mostly ridiculous from the common sense perspective and a violation of the NOTCENSORED Wikipedia policy; once we seriously start removing main page content because 'it may offend someone', what's next? No articles on racial issues, on gender issues on the main page? Maybe we should delete them just to be safe? Anyone suggesting this article is beyond hope when it comes to DYK is threading a very dangerous path and need major WP:TROUTing, with all die respect - it's one thing to suggest rewording a hook for more neutrality, something that I have no problem with, it's another to say a topic is totally unsuited - I repeat, nothing can ever be totally unsuited, the only reason a hook can be failed for neutrality is if nobody cares to fix it and propose a better alternative). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi You need to convince other editors, not just me. That's why I suggested a centralised location, such as NPOVN. Splintering discussions across multiple pages is unlikely to result in consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but as I value your opinion a lot, I'd be quite happy if I could manage to convince you :) Anyway, feel free to check the recent version of the article and comment on whether it is neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi I've expressed my opinion that the article should be moved to Paradisus Judaeorum, for starters: . The entire saying can be discussed in the "Background" section, as, well, background for the two-word phrase; the former generated coverage only in passing. There's really no point in having a DYK on a nn phrase, plus all the other baggage, as discussed earlier. Sorry, I'm not convinced, but I appreciate the effort :). --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering that the only two academic sources that discuss this topic in depth focus on the proverb and not just the Jewish Paradise construct, I think the current longer title is correct. The shorter phrase is used a bit more, but in passing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Paradise for the Jews" @ AfD
Hi what are the two academic sources that discuss this topic [the entire saying] in depth? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One is a Polish dictionary style collection of sayings from 1960 (not read by anyone - available in snippet view) The other is a paper from 1937 by an antisemitic political leader of the Polish Peasent Party who was advocating the mass expulsion of Jews from Poland as they were a "foreign body" (as well as advocating other stuff on Polish Jews).Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * is what Icewhiz saying true [that these are the two sources you have in mind]? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Bad faith a la reducto to antisemitum aside, yes. Except I'd describe the sources a bit more differently (I'd hope neutrally, but you can be the judge of that). The snippet view is sufficient to confirm that the proverb has a 2-3 page text analysis in the book on Polish proverbs by a Polish linguist and folklorist Julian Krzyżanowski. The book had its first edition in 1960 and the last in 1994, some editions where published by one of Poland's major publishing houses State Publishing Institute PIW, generally seen as one of Poland's top publishers (they publish encyclopedias, etc.). The second and likely better (longer) source is a monograph by another respected historian, Stanisław Kot. Despite Icehwiz assertion, he is not recognized as antisemite; I don't think I have to explain the relevant logical fallacies in trying to discredit sources by making and stressing such claims, but if you need a start, And you are lynching Negroes is a decent one ("my opponent is clearly wrong because his sources are connected to antisemitism, Nazism, whatever, so trust me, I am the good guy on the side of angels"). Not that antisemitism or one's attitude to Jews is relevant here, as we are not discussing it (through a certain editor is trying very hard to rephrase this discussion in those terms, since if successful, such re-framing allows him to gain support of audience for obvious reasons). Anyway, Kot is used as a source by several modern works cited, including those which are concerned with discussing antisemitism and which are clearly favorable to the pro-Jewish point of view. For example, he is cited by Tokar-Bakirska, a source Icehwiz champions (despite being published by a minor publisher with unclear peer view standards - see Talk:Koniuchy massacre for an interesting comparison of double standards - pl:Fundacja Pogranicze which published Tokarska-Bakir's essay is totally Icewhiz but pl:Instytut Wydawniczy „Pax” is unacceptable...). Not that I think TB is unreliable, she is a minor scholar and her article is published by a minor publisher, but there are no major red flags. Anyway, I am using her as an example of a source that Icehwiz considers reliable and relevant. But what is she saying? "Zatrzymam się chwilę przy znaczeniu tego przysłowia. Solidne studium źródłowe, publikowane w roku 1937, poświęcił mu Stanisław Koti, który przytacza następujący fragment utworu łacińskiego Paskwiliusze na królewskim weselu podrzucone (1606) ... W przekonaniu Stanisława Kota, paszkwil ten dowodzi nieszlacheckiego (od siebie dodajmy: na pewno też nieżydowskiego) poglądu na życie społeczne, moralne i obyczajowe [then follows a lengthy quotation from Kot]. I am not translating it (you can easily GT yourself), the point is that a source Icehwiz consider reliable and that is discussing antisemitism does not call Kot an antisemite, does not consider him underliable, instead it cites from his work on the proverb, and calls it a 'solid source review'. Janicka, another minor modern scholar (reliable, I am just saying she, like T-B, are junor scholars unlike Kot and Krzyzanowski, deceased professors with many awards/publications), the source of the anti-semitism angle (as she is the one source who explicitly refers to the "Jewish paradise" as antisemitic) quotes from TB: " “An authoritative source-based study of the subject was published by Stanisław Kot in 1937” (Tokarska-Bakir, 2004, p. 53)." So here Janicka, whose entire paper is about showing examples of antisemitism, is citing TB's reference to Kot as a reliable source - without, again, casting any doubt on him either as a scholar or as an antimsemite. So when two scholars who are some of Icewhiz main sources and whose papers focus on antisemitism seem to use Kot as a reliable source, well, I find it a bit, errr, OR/SYNTH/not good faith when Icehwiz tries to discredit Kot as unreliable antisemite. But, of course, it is all about whether a source supports one's argument or not... Now, as noted on article's talk, we don't have access to full version of either sources, but it seems quite clear (due to snippets for the book and references to scholars like TB to the monograph) that they are in-depth treatment of the proverb. And it also seems they are reliable. Two academic, in-depth sources suffice for GNG pass. So what's the problem here, except WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On the 1960s source, if you are seeing a snippet view only, it appears that you don't know what it actually says and whether it's "academic", no? On Stanisław Kot, in addition to being a scholar, he was also a politician, who "joined the right wing of the People's Party". And why is there a need to cite a 1930s source? Related to the age of the source, if other sources are discussing Kot's approach to the topic, I would consider these sources to be secondary, while the source they are analysing (Kot) is primary. Resulting in much of the content about the entire saying being OR, in addition to what's cited to 19th century source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The 1960 source quite possibly only contain primary quotes. As for Kot - the Nazi experiments on Hypothermia in Dachua are still considered to be definitive - Bogod - however no one woukd treat them as a secondary source. Kot is used by Tokar-Bakirska in an attributed manner (Janicka actually does not cite Kot - she cites Tokar-Bakirska and quotes Kot from there, noting the irony in the quote). Kot may have a decent source review (correct for 1937) - however that does not make him a secondary source nor a reliable one. In 1937 he was, I believe, a full time politician (with very ugly politics - as may he seen in a cursory BEFORE on his name - he is mainly covered in sources for his politics and WWII/post-war posts in the governemnt in exile) - having been dismissed his academic post a few years prior.Icewhiz (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen enough of the snippet (several sentences) to think I have a good feel for the source and I say it is an academic discussion. A 1930s scholarly work, still cited and obviously considered reliable, is, well, a proper secondary source. Kot's politics are irrelevant, People's Party was as a whole quite centrist and sympathetic to the Jews, not that it is relevant anywhere. All of this is simply irrelevant to the source. If it is good enough for modern scholars to reference, it is clearly good enough for us. Trying to discard it because one does not like some other aspects of the author or finds his life choices troublesome is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no indication that Kot's writings are a RS (for anything but Kot's views). His wartime plans of "mass relocation" of Jews to Odessa (per Kot - to be taken from Russian) was contrasted to Hitler's plans by Leonard Stein - this Friedrich, Klaus-Peter. "Die polnische Regierungsdelegatur und ihr „jüdisches Problem “1940-1945." Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas (2009): 23-53. makes an interesting read. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi If you are confident that Kot would pass RS muster, I would suggest raising the issue at RSN. The way the AfD is trending, I don't think the editors there share your conviction. It just looks like WP:ILIKEIT, to be honest. For example, I would not use a 1930's source from Nazi Germany to discuss an antisemitic-sounding saying (or United States, or Russia, for that matter). It's just common sense.

I don't agree with the Reductio ad Hitlerum / ad Antisemitismum analogy either:. You would be surprised at how many times I had to say: this is literally a neo-Nazi / Nazi-apologist source and would get "meh" responses from MILHIST. Some highlights from the ArbCom case here:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence

In general, I would be very cautious about using dated sources in a contentitious area such as this. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All I will say, is, simply, that if he is good enough for modern scholars of antisemitism (Tokarska-Bakir, Janicka) to cite, call solid, and omit any criticism, he is good enough for us. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:2018 Men's World Floorball Championships
I don't understand, why are you think that article about Draft:2018 Men's World Floorball Championships appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. There are some more articles like this, for example, 2016 Men's World Floorball Championships or 2014 Men's World Floorball Championships. --Treisijs (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My comment also was: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies)." I do not consider the topic to be notable. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * At this moment, this championship is ongoing, so it would be particularly desirable to return this article as soon as possible. At this moment this article is similar like 2016 Men's World Floorball Championships. -Treisijs (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

HBUS
I see that the Draft:HBUS has been deleted. Is there a way to get a copy of the source? The instructions on the page were to add better and/or newsworthy references which I was accumulating. The outright deletion of the page without notice is extremely off-putting. I am dismayed at the editors here. I was threatened to be blocked permanently for adjusting the description the leaves of an orchid that I have been cultivating for 20 years.. Geesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seedan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like User talk:Jacobmay636 has been notified; you can see more info here: User talk:Jacobmay636. Separately, I've responded to you here: User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/November. I do not plan to comment on this draft further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:FxPro
Hello! Thank you for taking your time to check the draft. After your review I tried to make that article more neutral. It also shortened. Could you look again? Thank you! --Rukkostan (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The draft is back in the queue. Please also see the message I left on your Talk page: User talk:Rukkostan. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know what the conflict of interests means as I actually disclosed my affiliation in my request for undeletion at July 15. In the nutshell, I was an employee in 2014—2016. Neither me nor my relatives or friends have any current ties to FxPro. There are articles about the company in Russian and Deutsche wikis, and I assumed that a well-sourced text would conform to notability requirements.--Rukkostan (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. The disclosures need to go on your user page and on the draft's Talk page since a message left on an unrelated Talk page is difficult to find. Please see WP:DISCLOSE for the appropriate templates. Regarding notability, these guidelines vary by project and may be different between ru and en wikis, for example. The latest guideline for companies is here: WP:NCORP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Christine Mitchell
How do you feel about the current state or condition of Draft:Christine Mitchell? There's more to be found, but I think that the set of issues to be explored here includes:
 * women's firsts at Harvard
 * role modeling how to move from one profession (nursing) to another (bioethics) via academic divinity school education
 * aggressive building of nursing ethics resources supporting the nursing and hospitalist professions.

What would you think ought to be improved about its current state? MaynardClark (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The draft still reads as if it were written by someone with a close connection to the subject, as in:
 * Along with research, publication, and engagement with public and medical professionals worldwide, the Center also grants a master’s degree in bioethics, conducts Postdoctoral Research Scholars Program in Bioethics, which invites applicants to study and be mentored for one to two years[1], and holds an annual bioethics conference.[2] It also organizes three named (sponsored) annual lectureships, ethics research projects, contemorary (sic) authors series, and weekly ethics consortia[3]...


 * This does not even need to be in the lead, since it's an advertisement for the centre, and not about the subject. The article could be 50% shorter and be better for it. Note that I declined it not on notability grounds, but due to the promotional tone. Add: much of the article is copy/paste from ; Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. Let me work on it more.  I've removed MOST of the text following the first sentence (though maybe that simple sentence could/should also be deleted).  However, familiarity with the subject of bioethics should not be a problem. Please look at these Wikipedia articles that cover accreditation of university-based bioethics programs:
 * * David Magnus
 * * List of Canadian bioethics programs
 * The growing field of bioethics education is young, and I believe that Christine Mitchell is one leader / person / bioethicist who is shaping bioethics education in North America. She is not unique, but to my observation she seems to be one of a select view.  Perhaps both AABPD and the topic of 'bioethics education' deserve individual articles (though current interest in these specialty articles would at present be limited).MaynardClark (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not plan to comment on the draft further. If you feel that the article has been sufficiently improved, you can resubmit it. Alternatively, you can reach out for further input on the draft at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red and / or Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. MaynardClark (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft deletion: Alternative Business Funding
Below are the comments I put forward to DGG, who was responsible for the Speedy Deletion of this draft. The deletion was so speedy that I was unable to lodge an appeal. I am therefore requesting re-consideration of this decision as being inconsistent with existing Wikipedia entries and also in demonstrating an apparent lack of understanding of the sector and the historical and legislative significance of this particular organisation/product.

"The entry was justifiable as an organisation which pioneered a product/service that led to a direct change in UK Primary Legislation. The entry itself was significantly amended following comments from the original reviewer to enhance the balance. The historical context and generic explanation of how a funding portal works was also amended to provide an even stronger encyclopedic element to this content. I ensured these elements were educational and balanced. The citations were all from independent, national publications or directly from UK Government sources. The G11 decision states: "because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic" and yet there are numerous live Wikipedia entries in this specific sector to which this ruling would apply - not least Funding Options, the second of the three UK Government designated portals (NOTE: it is absolutely not my intention to see this page removed). The same could be said for the Wiki entries of products and services such as Funding Circle, CrowdCube, Zopa, and MarketInvoice (which has been flagged as having significant issues but remains live). Also, every UK bank listed in Wikipedia. Again, my intention here is not to have these pages removed but to demonstrate the inconsistency in this deletion decision. I would be grateful for your comments and an opportunity to review your decision and reinstate the page."

KEC, I would be equally grateful for your comments on the above and request that you discuss this appeal with DGG with a view to reinstating the page. Many thanks. Casius12 (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casius12 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * since you are discussing the matter with the deleting admin, I don't really need to be involved. Please also see the message I left on your Talk page: User_talk:Casius12. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

KEC - thank you for your speedy response. I will continue the dialoge with the deleting admin as adivsed. However, for the record, I had read your talk feedback in October and, while I took steps to amend the content, my detailed response above demonstrates why your comment is inappropriate and entirely inconsistent with exisiting live Wikipedia entries. Thanks for your time. Casius12 (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Manal El-Feitury
, the draft i submitted has recently been declined, and i would just like a couple of pointers, so please feel free to be frank with me. Manal has become a pretty big celebrity here in Bulgaria since she appeared in the finals of X-Factor, and is now famous for producing and starring in musical theatre shows and performances. I wanted to create this page for her as a way of saying thankyou for inspiring our country to delve into something new and outside the normal box. Any pointers would be most welcome. Thanks, Santoro888. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoro888 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not consider the subject to be notable under WP:NACTOR. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Salina Vortex Corporation
I would like some further explanation on why the page Salina Vortex Corporation was rejected. Though it is a company, it has been written by a third-party, unassociated author using information from externally credited and reliable sources. The submission discusses third-party supported accomplishments and historical information - not company promotional messaging. I am wondering is there a double standard to privately owned companies versus publically traded companies? For example, Coca-Cola product names are mentioned throughout their Wiki page, yet they have not been flagged. Any recommendations you may have on how this page can be revised in order for it to be published would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Ltc1993 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not find the company to be notable under Notability (organizations and companies); there are insufficient reliable, secondary, independent sources that cover the subject. Comparing the company to Coca-Cola is not helpful either; see Einstein. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, but first please provide disclosures, if needed, of any conflict of interest or paid editing. Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * thank you; I appreciate it. You message reminded you that I'd been trying to learn German; I need to get back to it! --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

 * thank you for the thoughtful message. Wishing you the best as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
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) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Paradisus Judaeorum
Hi. I've been doing some work on this today following the AfD-move. Some interesting finds, such as Szymon Starowolski 1636 (whose work we call a "poem" in the "Uses in literature" as well as cite as reference) being covered in secondary sources as an example of the Catholic church finding the relationship between Jews and nobles as offensive. The use of "Paradisus Judaeorum" by the Polish anti-semitic National Democracy to describe the situation of Jews in ghettos in 1940 was also an interesting find - and if you recall Ewa Kurek's claims of "Jews had fun in the ghettos" - seems this has a 1940 antecedent. Going back on-point, it seems to me from reviewing the secondary sources that cover this term is that this is essentially used as a WP:POVFORK of History of the Jews in Poland - being one extreme end of the spectrum (Poles as a tolerant nation - the other side of the spectrum (held per multiple sources by many Jews, quite possibly wrongly) is that Pole and anti-Semite are synonymous terms) ... In your AfD !vote - diff - you advocated a re-title then merge to History of the Jews in Poland - I agree - we could perhaps have a section there on public perception or range of historical discourse. Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It would, seem however (noticed after this post), that we have a move review open at the moment. Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for the move review notice; you might want to notify all of the AfD participants as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea to ping. But I am off my PC for the next several hours. There are notices now on the AfD page. Will try to do tomotrow if no else does. I noticed the review (via looking at what linked to the page) after expressing support for your merge proposal - which probably should not be kicked off during the review. Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Latest instalments in this far-reaching debate:
 * Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 154 (closed as pulled)
 * Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews (closed as move)

Now also at: --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Move review/Log/2018 December

Move review: Paradisus Judaeorum
(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in, is in discussion at Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Joachim Peiper
I was thinking that if you were looking for an article to work on, this would be a good one. I recall you have Danny Parker's book. I did some ce back in September, but it could use some more ce work and cites. Kierzek (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know; the potential list is endless! I've not been spending as much time in mainspace editing, because I recently became active in WikiProject Articles for creation. I found that AfD experience makes AfC a seamless transition. Exposure to AfD and various notability guidelines is helpful in knowing which subjects are and aren't likely to survive a deletion discussion. Since you are a regular at AfD, I'd like to encourage you to give AFC a try. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand. And I will check out AFC, when I have more available time. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Jeremy Zimmer
Hello, thank you taking the time to look at my draft entry for Jeremy Zimmer. I have read your comments and made proposed changes to address your concerns. As a COI editor, I cannot make direct changes to the page. Would you be willing to take another look and see if this is ready to post? You can view my revised draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeremy_Zimmer EWChristine (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the follow-up. I left a note on the draft that promotionalism issues have been addressed and that I would let another reviewer to assess notability. I see that the draft has already been resubmitted, so it should be reviewed in due course. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Panzer Aces
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Supernova-Group
Hi, K.e.coffman! Thank you for reviewing my article. What do I have to do, to get the topic sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Is it the topic itself or is it the company, which is not famous enough? Greetings, --Naitsabes117 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not about what you need to do; it's about whether sufficient sources to establish notability exist. Please also see: User_talk:Naitsabes117. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I see. So I have to write a more critical text about the company, because it seems now like an advertisement?--85.124.19.214 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite. I declined the draft because I did not consider it notable under WP:NCORP. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, but first please provide disclosures, if needed, of any conflict of interest or paid editing, as I've already asked. Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I see. I only wonder, because in German Wikipedia the text was alright and I just translated the same text to English.

Naitsabes117 (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Question
Hello, at Draft:Lidia Vianu the issue „The article is creation protected” was solved, and the article improved. Now I should to press the "Resubmit" button? Does "creation protected" comment remain there, or can it be removed? Thanks. --Turbojet (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I left a note on the draft that the article is no longer creation protected and that I would let another reviewer assess the draft. If you feel that it's been sufficiently improved, you can resubmit it. However (from a quick glance), the draft still reads like a promotional CV. The article could be 50% shorter and be better for it. For starters, remove citations to primary sources such as bookselling websites and the subject herself. The section "Translations [a selection]" can be removed entirely. Etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, before resubmit I'll deal with the issues raised. --Turbojet (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Ernst Klink
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you; I appreciate it.--K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Wehrmachtberich sources at RSN
I've started opening RfCs for Wehrmachtbericht mentions at RSN; you might be interested in doing the same. My idea is that using tightly-focused groups of sources (similar works from the same series or author) and obtaining a closing statement will help us reach a clear consensus that we can use to move forward. –dlthewave ☎ 23:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

draft:ken O'Rourke (hair stylist)
Thank you for your informstion, i do not have any connection to my article I have been an admirer of his work for many years and would have posted a page much earlier but only just leant how to use a computer. Hopefully my amendments will be wothin the guidelines ive read and read them over amd over

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pin3appl385 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The revised version looks much better. I left a noted that it had addressed my concerns about the advertorial tone and that I would let another editor assess notability. Please feel free to re-submit. The draft would go back into the queue and will be reviewed in due time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advise so kind Pin3appl385 (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Gity Razaz
Hi! I have included information and links to additional notable sources including for New York Public Radio (WQXR and The Jerome L. Greene Performance Space), The Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., as well as two for the Seattle Symphony. Thanks for your consideration and I hope you will approve the page.

Ambrose46 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * if you feel that the draft has been sufficiently improved, you are welcome to resubmit it. Before you do, be sure to remove external links from the body of the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year!
May the coming new year grant us all opportunities to help Wikipedia enlighten the world!

Nihil novi (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings!

 * thank you; I appreciate it :). --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Holidays!

 * thank you; much appreciated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

 * thank you for the well-wishes; same to you! --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Quentin Summerfield
Thank-you for taking the time to read the draft article.

I wonder if you could clarify where the article is and is not going in he right direction. Since the comment of a previous editor that it required secondary sources and evidence of notability, I have added the Ear and Hearing editorial, the BMJ editorial and the article in ENT and Audiology News that commended his work and explained its influence. These editorials are secondary, independent sources and they are referenced and/or hyper-linked correctly. Special mentions in editorials are rather rare, so I imagined that they addressed the issue, but it appears that there is now added criticism of self-promotion Are they helpful?

His work is extensively cited in the academic literature (as evidenced by the linked Google scholar profile), and the vast majority of the 12,000 or so citations will be secondary sources (i.e. not self-citations), but they will mostly be instances of his work being mentioned. I am not sure how I might use them. Would doing so potentially be helpful?

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by CullingJ (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I reached out here to help assess notability: Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Separately, if you have a personal or professional relationship with the subject, you need to disclose it. Please see WP:COI & WP:PAID. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Ruth Bettina Birn
Alex Shih (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Biting
Please don't tell people that topics just "aren't notable" unless it's really really blatant. Rather, tell them that they haven't shown that the topic is notable. DS (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for your message. Do you have a specific example in mind? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For instance, this draft about Alex Mukulu has enough sources to indicate that there's some potential, even if there was a bit too much puffery. And, indeed, there do appear to be other sources about Mr Mukulu online. "This is inadequate and needs improvement" is very diff", I erent from "this is inadequate and will always be inadequate". DS (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The rejection had nothing to do with notability: . K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" is difficult for people to understand. DS (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I second this statement:"contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" is difficult for people to understand I was going to say the same thing, but forgot. What purpose? There are Five Pillars of WP, are we left to try and decipher what is meant? Which of the Five Pillars?I am incapable of intuiting meaning from vague statements, more specifity would help in particular which of the Five PillarsOldperson (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC) I forgot to ping you to the above. I assumed that you were monitoring your talk pageOldperson (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The rejection feature offers two options: a. "the topic is not notable" and b. "the topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". When a draft is being resubmitted without improvement, I consider that it qualifies under the latter. Draft:Alex Mukulu had already been declined twice, on Nov 4 and Nov 25. I rejected it, adding a comment: "The draft would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be accepted.", which I think is clear. It's great that you worked on the draft, but it's not feasible for AFC reviewers to assist with individual drafts. I consider timely reviews to be the primary goal; if someone has to wait 3 months just to get their draft declined, it does not help with editor retention. That said, if you are willing to lend a hand, that would be great. The project can always use experienced editors to deal with the backlog or to improve promising drafts; see for example: Category:AfC pending submissions by age/4 weeks ago, which is currently the oldest cat. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

 * thank you; I appreciate it. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:John Ferrar, Deputy Treasurer, Virginia Company
Questions and comments about the rejection.

I now understand what Robert McClenon stated that I write in a 19th Century style when I saw this: "The sentence "The honesty and diligence of John Ferrar saved the enterprise" should not be in the voice of Wikipedia. If someone wrote this, quote them.

Has this language been copied from another source? (It appears to be written in a nineteenth-century style.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)" That was not a quote, that was my language, I was not aware that I write in a 19th Century style. I asked for an example was not provided one. One can not correct that which one does not know needs correcting. I can correct that.

As regards the quote from the Fortnightly Club. I mention up front that it is a quote, and I even provided a citation at the end. I encapsulated it with apostrophes, I thought I did every thing right as partial quotes are acceptable and that was a partial quote. I notice that mentions of the Virginia Company of London were flagged as copyvio's? The Virginia Company of Lonndon is a common reference to the company. There was the Virginia Company of London as distinguished from the Virginia Company of Plymouth (full name actually Company of Knights, Merchants, Gents, Adventurers of the City of Bristol, Exeter and town of Plymouth. Mentioning the Virginia company of London is hardly a copyvio.

That leaves he long quote of the Fortnightly magazine. Even though partial quotes are acceptable. I can rework and paraphrase. Would that be acceptable? I prefer to leave the partial quote as is. If partial quotes are unacceptable copyvio's could you point me to such in WP policy.I would like to understand it so I don't violate the policy. ? ThanksOldperson (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC) After taking a breath and reading the article as it stands. I noticed that I had already removed the 19th Century and emotive language. All that is left is the quote from the Fortnightly magazine, which as I explained was (so I thought) within the parameters of acceptability of WP;. If not could you gentlemen please explain and provide an example. I am not a seasoned editor and help is appreciated.Oldperson (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears that K.e.coffman rejected the draft because large parts of it appeared to have been copied from another website, which violates Wikipedia policy on copyright. Catrìona (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Catrìona|K.e.coffman Thank you but I do understand that is the reason why? However WP does permit "Fair Use" and I did not quote the whole article, only a paragraph which definitely falls under the doctrine of Fair Use.Oldperson (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Fair use" applies to images and to short quotations that are marked as such. Please read WP:Copyright violations and WP:close paraphrasing for the policy preventing copying text from other websites. Catrìona (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

"Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...", together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph. Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing." The quotation that is faulted in my article falls specifically within those guidelines and was tailored to meet them. !.The quote was CLEARLY ATTRIBUTED WITHIN THE TEXT: E.G."Following is a long quote from the Fortnightly Club:", it also had a citation at the end of the quote, and the quote was enclosed in apostrophes, all of this meets and mets the WP policy. I do not wish to be rude, but I posted this on K.e.coffmans page for a reason, I wanted to discuss it with him and get his rationale and explanation but he has not responded. Unless you are an alter ego for K.e..Is that the case? K.e. is reading their talk pagee as there is response to subsequent posts. I ask these questions with trepidation, I am well schooled in human behavior, and do know that some persons when feel "challenged" or perceived to be disrespected will set out on a vendetta or be extremely critical in futuree. I do not charge K.e.coffman with these attributes, but I do no they exist and have encountered or seen them by others on and off WP. I do AGF, but am never the less cautiousOldperson (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. I appreciate your attempt to explain policy, however I am familiar with much of it including this part


 * I'm sorry that you did not have a positive experience and that the rejection seemed harsh. For that, I apoligise. The expectation is that article creators are self-sufficient, but I see that more specific guidance could have helped. For example, when nearly a third of a draft is a verbatim quote from a source, that does not fall under fair use. There's also WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk for specific questions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Understood apology accepted and likewise I apologize for my behavior. I was confused, in some ways still am,overquoting is one "sin" and an inappropriate topic is another "sin". Oldperson (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello K.e.coffman: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
 * thank you & same to you, sir! --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * thank you; hope to see you around in 2019. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wolfram Wette
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wolfram Wette you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Andriy_Dakhovsky
Hello. Could You explain me about notability of this article? I think this "person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" in his country in 2000 - 2015. He was one of top-3 Ukrainian musical producers of that age. That is why I wrote his bio and tryed to use independent sources. So how can I improve it for publication in en.wikipedia.org? SavonarolaK (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the subject is non-notable and the article is promotional. Please also see User_talk:SavonarolaK. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Crowdin
Hi! Thanks for reviewing the article. Can you suggest what can be improved? Regarding the sources, is 24 sources, not enough? I'm sure once the article is published other people would be able to add more resources. And regarding the tone - what exactly sound promotional? I can remove some info, because I'm not a professional developer, so I used simpler language. Sure other more technical people would be able to add info they find important about such tools helping with localization. As it's holiday season, I'll be able to find some time for editing with your directions. Meli.roden (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources you cited are not reliable and/or independent. Quality of sources, not quantity, is what matters most (see WP:CORPDEPTH.) Catrìona (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please also see User_talk:Meli.roden. You need to declare any WP:COI and / or WP:PAID relationship with the subject of the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you, got it. I will then remove the less reliable ones.
 * Does that count as a conflict of interest if I volunteered as a translator for several companies (Minecraft, GitLab, Reddit) using this platform to manage their content? But I also volunteer translations on other platforms like Crowdin, but they already have pages on Wikipedia.Meli.roden (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the article is written in a promotional tone, while the subject does not appear to be notable just yet. The sources are in passing, blogs, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed and edited the sentences that could sound promotional. Also reviewed the sources to make sure they are all reliable and well-known either for translators or developers. Can you please review the article again and give me feedback on whether its ready to be published?

Merry Christmas!

 * thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform)
Hello K.e.coffman, would you be willing to do a quick pre review of this Draft:Cardano_(cryptocurrency_platform)? ProgrammingGeek moved my sandbox live and you moved it to draft with the comment "Unclear notability; largely self-sourced". Would it be save now to submit it for review at Articles for Creation? Information security and crypto are one of my favorite topics. Thank you, --FlippyFlink (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Cardano (platform) was deleted from mainspace and is creation protected. Same story for Cardano (cryptocurrency). Just because the draft has a different name, does not mean that the history would not be brought up. So I'm not optimistic. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reaction. Someone else created Ada (cryptocurrency), I was trying to recreate Cardano (platform), but ProgrammingGeek (I don't know him/her) moved my sandbox live just after the speedy deletion and renamed it to Draft:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform). I cannot help what others do, but think ProgrammingGeek's name is the best name out of the three. After it was moved to draft again, I tried to write the article in a neutral, non advertising, way. I hope I succedded and meet the Wikipedia standard. --FlippyFlink (talk)
 * Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) is also creation protected. Coming so soon after the deletion discussion, it's unlikely that it would be lifted. Beyond that, the subject does not appear to be notable yet. It's WP:TOOSOON, per review of available sources, such as "Cardano: a rising cryptocurrency that wants to change the world" (emphasis mine). This is all about the subject's aspirations and future looking statements. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and reaction. I replied on the Cardano talk page so everyone can participate. --FlippyFlink (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

 * Thank you,User:7&6=thirteen; I appreciate you. Best wishes to you as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Wishing you a most happy holidays! Thank you for the message, and for your thoughtful and good contributions! I hope that 2019 would be another good year for you. Sorry for lateness in getting back; I had to work the infernal hours (6 pm to 6am) on the weekend while getting very sick, but I'm feeling better now, and your message certainly improved my mood during a grim weekend. Best wishes and cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for the kind message. Hope to see you around in 2019! K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Leonid Fainzilberg
Hi, K.e.coffman! Thank you for reviewing my article. I added new link to this article, it's Fasegraphy - innovative method in cardiology /TechToDay, 02.11.2016 (in Ukrainian). Is it counts as "independent, reliable, published sources"? I really hope that all my addings makes article sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If no, please help me out to figure what's wrong? Thank you! (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:Santanara, and declare any conflict of interest or WP:PAID editing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response! As I said before to the previous editor Fainzilberg Leonid was the head of my Ph.D. Thesis, so I know him personally and also we used to work together. Now we are not working at the same organisation and I don't get paid for this article. I'm not advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone, there are already many Wikipedia pages about ukrainian scientists, this is one of them. My goal is to show the world outside Ukraine an outstanding scientist who did a lot for modern science. If after all this is incorrect and I simply have no right to write this article, then I apologize, I could simply misunderstand the rules of Wikipedia. As I understood from the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (I read it in Russian, but I hope that the meaning has not changed) I should declare my COI, but I really don't understand where and how. Can you help me with this? Thank you very much for your attention! Santanara (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santanara (talk • contribs)
 * You should copy this declaration to the talk page of the article in question and also to your userpage; alternately you can use the following templates: UserboxCOI (on your userpage) and Connected contributor (on the article talk page). Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Catrìona (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. I used UserboxCOI on my User:Santanara page and Connected contributor on User talk:Santanara, but I'm not sure about the last one. If it is not too much trouble, can you tell me if I write it right? Santanara (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Julian Osula
Hi K.e.coffman, you recently rejected my article Draft: Julian Osula based on conflict of interest. Please know that, I don't know the person neither do I work for him. I created the article for more people to know about the famous Nigerian' King of Luxury Item. Kindly reconsider. Blendar33 (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * COI is a separate matter from notability; you must declare any WP:PAID or COI relationship, if exists. Beyond that, the subject does not meet WP:ANYBIO, in my estimation; coverage is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Email2Phone
Hi, K.e.coffman. Thanks for viewing my article and for pointing out the inconsistency with high standards of the Wikipedia article. Given all the circumstances, I rewrote the article using the data with links to Google Scholar. And I would like to pre-submit it to you before re-posting. --Drwolf85 (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The page was deleted as unambiguous advertising; I also recall that the subject was non-notable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear K.e.coffman, thank you for your reply. I was quite disappointed in hearing that some materials in our article were not rather appropriative. I'm writing to you to specify what could go wrong and to be indicated for possible remarks. It's was my first expirience on wroting article for wikipedia. I finded a notabled links on google scholar, and rewrote this article. Can you please assist what should be changed to match the Wiki's community rules. I didn't have an aim to promote this is service, just only informing about this service. Have a Blessed weekend and Great holidays. --Drwolf85 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * you appear to represent the company in question ("our article"). Please note that paid editing without disclosure is not allowed; see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Please also review Notability (organizations and companies) before making further inquiries. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wolfram Wette
The article Wolfram Wette you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wolfram Wette for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to thank me, the article was well-done. I hope to see more like it on other military historians. I do wish you could have found something about his family life, but I understand that such information is hard to find for non-celebrities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)