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

The overabundance of IMDb sourced articles
Wikipedia has way too many articles sourced only to IMDb. I prodded a bunch of these for deletion, since IMDB is explicitly not a reliable source, and had my prodds pretty much all deleted. With the limit of only one nomination every 24 hours, I have little hope of making any headway against this huge, gargantuan collection of articles on bit part actors and forgotten films. Edward Cansino Jr is just the tip of the iceberg.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One per day is still 30 per month. Worth a try? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Perplexed
I am having a serious issue with the closing of the AFD Articles for deletion/Hattie B's Hot Chicken. I don't understand exactly the rationale of the closing, supposed sock puppets, and reversing the decision. This gives me a sour taste because the reasoning, "deletion cannot stand due to discussion being tainted by sockpuppetry. Overturning to keep", was so flimsy. I looked and some editors were blocked, leaving a mean count of as 8 for "delete" and three for "keep". My main issue is that there will always be those that wish to disrupt. In my opinion, like as with any close, 1)- the "junk", 2)- not giving substantive policy and guideline reasoning or rationale, or just "keep" or "delete !votes with nothing else, or some other !vote deemed to be in some way inappropriate, and these would be discounted. This would be the same if there were votes from COI, those too close to the subject to be objective, or even meat or sock puppets. The bottom line is that after the trash is weeded out, a look at what is left would give a consensus one way or the other or no consensus. My problem is that I looked at the !votes again, discounting only those blocked, and there was still the above !votes of 8 for delete and three for keep. That is an enormous spread even if three of the delete !votes were discounted. The problem to me is that an issue with sock puppets, or any other reason I can imagine, would not be a good enough reason to summarily trash an entire AFD. I have not run into this before, and not canvassing some ---something (I couldn't even think of a scenario) but just needed to ask someone else if this was normal or something not entirely appropriate. Thank you for your time, Otr500 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * there was apparently some sockpuppetry involved, so the close was vacated. Oh well, one nn / promo article in a sea of nn / promo articles is not going to bring Wikipedia down ... In these situations, I generally move on. If the problems persist, someone will renominate the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at DRN
You are invited to join the discussion at Deletion_review/Log/2017_December_28. Rusf10 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to sit this one out; "No consensus" was a reasonable close, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I respect your opinion. Since the keep voters were flooding the deletion review, I though it would be fair to reach out to everyone else to see if anyone else had input.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , you've claimed at WP:ANI that other editors violated WP:CANVASS. If you're only notifying delete voters, you're explicitly violating that rule. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And if that was okay, I don't see how this isn't. By the time I sent out this notification all the keep voters (and only the keep voters) had already participated or at least been canvassed to the discussion (gee, I wonder how that happened?). It would clearly fall under "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". A little different that canvassing an editor who's never edited an article before.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Votestacking. You can't pick one side -- and only one side -- of a debate, as you've explicitly done here. You're only creating more problems for yourself. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I should have notified you (and the others who already partcipated), that doesn't make any sense. If I had done this at the start of the deletion review, you might have a point, but if you look at the time I sent this notification you can clearly see all the keep votes were aware at that point. And I apologize to K.e.coffman that this is being disccused on his talk page.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I received a notification that I was mentioned in this discussion. However, I don't remember being involved in this or see anything relating to me here. Was this a mistake or am I missing something? –Noha307 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * it must have been a glitch; you were not mentioned in this discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Jeff Becerra
Hi. The biography has encyclopedic relevance and numerous references (especially for his vocal technique and the incident that keeps him in a wheelchair). I see no reason for the article to be independent of the band's page. Adriel ricardo morales (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see "also not seeing evidence of notability independent of the band. very limited coverage of this person". --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mogilev Conference
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mogilev Conference 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 Alex Shih -- Alex Shih (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Elyson de Dios
Hello K.e.coffman. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Elyson de Dios, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "Article has far more sources than it did when it was deleted. Needs to go back to AfD." Thank you. Ged UK  15:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has been listed for discussion here: Articles for deletion/Elyson de Dios. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Milan Kordestani
I thought you might want to stop this article from being approved, considering it is a copy of the article that you have AFD twice in the past month. Draft:Milan_Mathew_Kordestani Antditto (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This feels like an abuse of power. Your initial problems with the page were that it didn't have significant coverage of Milan as an equestrian. But now the article is much cleaner, and everything is cited and unbiased, yet you still nominate it for deletion. Come on, there are tons of references, media coverage, etc. 2603:3024:1827:6E00:8D54:B1DE:D8C:B6EB (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The concern at both AfDs was that the subject was not yet notable. It has been deleted twice at AfD in the span of a month:
 * Articles for deletion/Milan Kordestani (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Milan Kordestani


 * As well as here: Draft:Milan Kordestani. This looks like plenty of chances for having demonstrated notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Milan_Mathew_Kordestani. Actually read it. Compare it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Gaylord_McClean. I agree, the first two pages were like an advertisement, but this draft is not, it clearly has references and is written unbiasedly. Don't contest it just because the articles were poorly written in the past. This one passes all of wikipedia's rules2603:3024:1827:6E00:8D54:B1DE:D8C:B6EB (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year
Best wishes for 2018 ... and congrats on the first CfD nomination of 2018. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Behave yourself!
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: The IP editor has been blocked for a month for disruption. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ronald Smelser

 * Thank you; much appreciated! K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Panzer Ace article mediation
Hi K.e.coffman, thanks for all your input with the article so far. As we are going nowhere, I have put in a request for an outside mediator to look at it.If you would like to have your say in the mediation, go to the bottom and select agree to the mediation (I don't know if the system notified you automatically of this, so letting people know) The request for mediation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Panzer_Ace#Issues_to_be_mediated. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Help if possible - Jefferson Davis Park, Washington
You had spoke about removing one image and setting up a link to the image gallery. I was hoping you might have a bit of time to do it so I can see how it is done as I don't want to mess of the article. Thanks for everything you done and if you can't, then I will give it a shot (in the dark). C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's working. I tagged two images, which now are linked below Jefferson_Davis_Park,_Washington as "Media from Commons". Just add to the bottom of the pages of the other park photos on Commons. Please let me know if anything is unclear. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Helmut Krausnick
Hello, K.e.coffman – I need to mention a few things:

1) First, unusually, I could not figure out where on the article's talk page to place the Guild of Copy Editors template indicating that a copy-edit was completed, so I have left a question for an editor with technical expertise. So that will be added soon.

2) In the second paragraph in Helmut Krausnick, I changed "multiple", in "multiple languages", to "many". "Multiple" is really not the best writing. If you think it should not be "many", you could change it to "several". It all depends upon the actual number of languages.

3) In the first paragraph in the Die Truppe des Weltanschauungskrieges section, I changed "bourgeois offsprings" to "sons of upper-middle class Germans". That was really just a guess on my part. I preferred not to leave a phrase that was both ungrammatical (the word "offspring" does not have a plural form) and non-colloquial ("bourgeois", though it is a word in English, is not used very often and may have little meaning to an average Wikipedia reader). Of course, it all depends upon what the sources say. If you think the phrase I used is not accurate, perhaps you could give this some thought and find a better phrase. You could just use "young, upper-middle class Germans".

4) The first sentence in the same section is:


 * Krausnick co-authored Die Truppe des Weltanschauungskrieges (Troops of Ideological Crusade), the 1981 work on the mass murder of Jews in the occupied Soviet Union by the Einsatzgruppen units.

According to Manual of Style/Titles, the translation of the German title should be written with no special formatting, and in sentence case, unless the work is well known with an English title. So, I took away the quotation marks and put the English translation in sentence case. (I'm going to double-check this formatting issue.) But besides that, the phrase is missing a word to make it sound colloquial. It should be either "Troops of an ideological crusade" or "Troops of the ideological crusade". It would also sound good with "in" instead of "of": "Troops in an ideological crusade" or "Troops in the ideological crusade". Well, that's all. – Corinne (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC) I think it would sound even more colloquial (i.e., more like English), if it read "The troops in/of an/the ideological crusade". – Corinne (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed explanation; I agree with the changes. Regarding "Troops of Ideological Crusade" (as in the original), I picked the translated name from the review I was using for the section. However, I see your point and will make the change. Re "of" vs "in", I have a slight preference to "of" since they were the agents of the crusade, not just "involved in" a crusade. Hope this makes sense. Thanks again for the copy edit! K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I thought of one more thing: in the block quote that appears at the end of the Helmut Krausnick section, you'll see that I added a word, "was", that seemed to be missing. However, if the quote was in English and really was missing the word in the original, you might want to put "was" in single square brackets: [was] to indicate that you added the word and that it was not in the original. – Corinne (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb 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 Sigurd Hring -- Sigurd Hring (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hitler's Generals on Trial
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hitler's Generals on Trial 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 Spintendo -- Spintendo (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you have another GA currently in progress. I can wait until that one is finished before we begin, if you like. Please advise. Thnx  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   16:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the offer; it's quite considerate of you. I don't see an issue however; the other article has gone through a peer review of sorts, so I don't anticipate major issues with the other review. I should be able to respond promptly to comments and queries. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my delay, I will try to finish up with the other review soon. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I you could take a look at the article as it now currently stands and let me know if you're ok with how I worded the conclusion section, then that should be it. Thank you!  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I appended the Pendas cite. Looks good overall! K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion...
...on this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * should have been taken to the TP for discussion, if I might suggest - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Further, the book and edits from this 1940 work have been discussed on editor's TP. Kierzek (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Should have taken the changes to the TP before changing the article, that way all of this would have been hashed out before any changes were made. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * & others: Concur. This looks like "ref-spam", basically. Overall, I would consider the 1940 source to be WP:PRIMARY in this context. Longerich and Gunther are just not on the same level. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This editor's fascination with the Gunther book is reminiscent of the editor Music man214's fascination with Shirer, and who wanted to add extensive quotation from it to Adolf Hitler. That editor explicitly said that they didn't trust newer books, that older sources were better, which appears to be Ylee's POV as well.  I don't think think there's a connection between them (Ylee's been here, pretty consistenly, since 2004 with 35+K edits, Music man214 was into, well, music, and Ylee is into science fiction) but it's odd to see the similarity in attitude towards older sources.  They are also both tyros in editing Nazi Germany-related articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is odd. Reminds me of a certain editor who wanted to use a 1944 source for a bio of German WWII general because it was fairer or some such :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, BTW, I'm aware that I'm very overdue to respond to two emails you sent me, one here and one on Commons. I just can't seem to find the time to sit down and compose a coherent reply. (I owe one to Kierzek as well).  To be honest, I'm not very good at keeping up personal correspondence, it's one of my pet peeves about myself.  As they say in Jamaica, "Soon come, mon". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons
It was about this situation: "Meanwhile, over at Commons...". I find it a little shocking, frankly, that this type of contribution is considered "within scope", especially with the neo-Nazi dog whistle right in the name. From the response to an : SHM. I'm going to start decorating my user page with these images in protest :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have found the recolorings of User:Ruffneck88 to be very accurate, even in details. He colors in even minor parts of uniforms and vehicles, down to individual leaves on background trees.
 * I guess IF there were no color photos of a certain uniform, for example, I could see a re-colored photo being used to point out details and show it as is was in real life; BUT, that is not the case. I don't see the point of their use herein. Especially, what is the point of re-coloring a tank and a statue/sculpture? I don't get it. BTW - you are correct about the name. Kierzek (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for confirming my suspicion. I've been more successful with the latest nomination, in part because I've linked to the image from Talk:Panzer ace. Once this closes, the case for removal of other images may be stronger. I find the colourising of the atrocity images (i.e. from the Stroop Report) to be especially in bad taste. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: List of Bellator Kickboxing events
Hello K.e.coffman. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of Bellator Kickboxing events, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Neither the creator nor its sock account was blocked at the time of this article's creation, and this subject type (list of events) doesn't qualify for A7. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hitler's Generals on Trial
The article Hitler's Generals on Trial you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hitler's Generals on Trial 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 Spintendo -- Spintendo (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Congrats! C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Police Regiment Centre
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Police Regiment Centre 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 Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb
The article Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb 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 Sigurd Hring -- Sigurd Hring (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ernst-Wilhelm_Modrow
Ernst-Wilhelm_Modrow has been restored. It is unnecessary to redirect all articles to the list. This article was fine on its own. auntieruth (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello! An old dispute that you were involved in has been brought up again. Your opinion is greatly valued. Thank you! KevinNinja (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. BTW, the comment about nationalist fanaticism wasn't quite nice. Best to keep it focused on content, not on the perceived motivations of editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will be particularly blunt when it comes to this issue. But, perhaps it is best I remove my comment before it sparks a reply. KevinNinja (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You might notice I wasn't quick enough to act.. hah. KevinNinja (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It might still be a good move to strike the comment, in the spirit of collegiality & such :-). It's really up to you, but I did notice the wording. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

NUVI
I met with Keith Nellesen once last year for about 1/2 hour. I'm not an employee. Youngnoah (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah.

A barnstar for you!

 * Congrats! C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I appreciate it. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mogilev Conference
The article Mogilev Conference you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mogilev Conference 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 Alex Shih -- Alex Shih (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Congrats on this article passing GA. Kierzek (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you and for the helpful feedback and suggestions for expansion. The article improved significantly between the nomination and passing GA. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...
Thank you for this one by the way, appreciated it. I didn't get to respond at the time but.. better late than never? Hope your year started off well. Prinsgezinde (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

G11 taggings
Hi there. I'm aware that I shouldn't have to tell an experienced user like yourself this but unfortunately, taggings such as this one are needlessly incorrect and create unnecessary work for admins patrolling CAT:CSD. Please do remember that WP:G11 requires the text of the article has to be exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten and that promotional intent by the page creator is not sufficient to warrant speedy deletion. Also, be advised that receiving coverage in reliable sources is usually sufficient to pass A7, even if notability is not established. Last but not least, when another experienced editor decided to AFD an article instead of tagging it for speedy deletion, it usually means they have considered speedy deletion and decided against it. Tagging articles that are already at AFD thus might cause others to assume that you doubt their skills to correctly assess whether something meets G11/A7. Regards  So Why  10:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, noted. To clarify, no disparaging of the nominators was intended. BTW, one of the declined speedies was speedy deleted anyway: Articles for deletion/IMackulate Vision Gaming. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not saying that it was. Unfortunately, you wouldn't be the first editor without such intentions to be accused of disparaging others (that's why I said "might"). As for the other one, that's okay. Valid G12s should always be deleted, even if a previous speedy for other reasons was declined. Regards  So Why  11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Police Regiment Centre
The article Police Regiment Centre you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Police Regiment Centre for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Robert C. Seacord
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert C. Seacord 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/Robert_C._Seacord until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for letting me know; looks to be a notable author. BTW, Worldcat Identities is a good tool to help gauge whether an author is likely to be notable or not: https://www.worldcat.org/identities/. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...
... for improving article quality in January 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Otto von Knobelsdorff
Hi, just a courtesy message letting you know that I removed your refimprove tag on the Otto von Knobelsdorff article due to deleting the huge amount of guff that had been added by an IP back in December and which I figured prompted your addition of the tag in the first place. Googling a few phrases of guff, I found that all that material was entirely, or at least largely, a cut and paste from a webpage. I assume you are OK with the sources otherwise? Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for removing the copyvio 'cruft. I don't have any concerns otherwise. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)