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

Thank you ...
... for improving article quality in Febuary 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:War in History (book series)


Hello, K.e.coffman. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "War in History".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Rose City
It will be a while before I can do much on this subject as too much is too close to the TBAN that I need to appeal first. I hope to do this in a few months if all go well and things stay quiet. I was not happy with being brought up at AN/I, a few weeks back, but that was not my choice to make. Anyway, I must wait for now. Cheers - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought it was an IBAN (interaction ban), not a TBAN (topic ban) - ? --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It should have been a two way IBAN, but instead I received a TBAN from posting anything related to in any named page or it's TP back in October/November.  I need a while without my name coming up on any Admin. boards before I appeal.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Police Regiment South
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Police Regiment South 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you; I look forward to the review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't copy text from articles anywhere
As you may have noticed, I removed the copypasted text you posted on Talk:AR-15 style rifle. Please do not paste material, attributed or not, from copyrighted sources, anywhere, including on talk pages. I've redacted the text and left a few sentences each for context, but please be more careful in the future. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 13:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad; thank you for taking care of this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Police Regiment South
The article Police Regiment South you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Police Regiment South 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

James Allsup
Hey, I am unsure if my ping worked but there is currently a discussion on Talk:James Allsup and since I see you were actively involved in the last discussion you may want to add your two cents. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the ping indeed did not work, so thank you for this message. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to know! Someone tried pinging me and it didn't work either. I am unsure what's going on. The thanks button was also broken a few weeks ago. Anyways, I appreciate your input on the page. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's why: . If the post is unsigned, the ping does not work. Please see Help:Fixing_failed_pings for more details. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, another editor just pointed that out to me. Sheesh, just when I think I got a handle on Wikipedia. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're still online but if you are would you mind checking out the proposal I mentioned on Allsup's talk page? Since the page is unlocked tomorrow I want a consensus to be formed.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Note on those porn bios...
...i.e., Monica Sweetheart and Daniella Rush - both redirected to a summary article by you and restored by Guilherme Burn. I did pass both of them at review just now because they seem to pass WP:PORNBIO in having won a major industry award each. However, not my bailiwick and I don't know the topic modalities; you might want to drop the editor a short comment on one of the relevant talk pages. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for letting me know; I've asked the editor for more sources. In general, the recent consensus at AfD has been that winning the award without good sources does not establish notability. In those particular articles, the awards likely do not meet the current interpretation of WP:PORNBIO to begin with. Here's a discussion that may be relevant: User_talk:Gene93k. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the best way to get some new eyes on the NRA disagreement
K.e, I don't think either one of us has done a good job of winning the other one over. I feel very strongly that I'm correct and that it would be a disservice to our readers to remove the sort of information I'm trying to add. Basically I feel I'm improving NPOV in the article. I bet you feel the same way about your edits. To this end I'm asking what you think would be the most agreeable way to get more eyes on the subject. I was thinking about village pump. I don't really want to do a RfC but would be open if you think that's the best method. With only three of us really working there I think we need more points of view. Springee (talk)
 * thank you for your message. The first step would be for you to remove that edit that has been challenged. Per WP:ONUS, it's on you to achieve consensus about the edit that's been challenged, rather than insist on pushing one's edit though, as you are doing here, restoring the same material:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Even if it's not technically 3RR, you are edit warring against two editors, that's not okay. I've alerted you about your edits coming across as WP:SOAP here: . In the areas that are subject to AE enforcement, it's always best to self-revert first. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, if we can work agree that we can readdress the issue once we get wider participation in the discussion I will remove it. Where should we ask for help?  I was considering RSN Springee (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would recommend WP:NPOVN. Also, in general, please heed the advice you've been given here:
 * Somewhat off-topic discussion on neutrality
 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, please roll back to this version: . You can put in the edit summary that it's a self-revert pending discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. So where do you suggest we take it from here?  I would be open to a RfC but not for the exact edits.  In that case I would think the question needs to be more open ended.  Springee (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for self-reverting. I will look at the sources again. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm going to reiterate, we can work together. I'm not reverting your changes, instead I'm just asking that we all assume good faith and use the tags so people can get a chance to work on sections/material while it's still in the article. I may not agree with the edits but I do think you're efforts are in good faith. Springee (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I'm quite happy to work with you. Likewise, I believe that you are editing in good faith. However, the selective application of policies and guidelines, when it comes to NRA and gun manufacturers, is peculiar. For example, you've suggested that it's better to "tag it as cn then let people try to fix it. That is the more collaborative way to handle this". If that's the approach you prefer, I'm curious as to why you removed the material in the Smith & Wesson article here: "VPC is a anti-gun group and a self published source thus the addition violates RS and WEIGHT". Why didn't you tag and let others fix it? If you could clarify it for me, I would appreciate it. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman, thanks for the reply. Your question is fair in this context so I'll try to give you a complete answer.  I removed the material for several reasons that basically add up.  First were the reasons I stated at the time but I will expand on them.  The material was added not to the body of the article but the lead.  In that place it is an issue of due weight.  Second, the source, is in fact an anti-gun group so it isn't reliable for the sort of claims being made.  As PackMecEng noted, it's one thing for an article about a subject to self cite.  It's quite another when a source hostile to the subject is cited in Wiki voice.  In the NRA case I don't think we will find anyone who says the programs don't exist so basically it shouldn't be a controversial fact.  Your comment about "improving school security in an effort to help prevent national tragedies" was fair though attributing that aim to the NRA would address the issue.  I don't think there is any way to take the opinion of the VPC and fit it into the lead as a RS or a source with sufficient Weight to be in the lead.  OK, beyond that, remember the NRA material is basically non-controversial (I think we trust that the program exists) even if some of the language could be improved.  It is also material that has been in the article for some time.  In the case of the S&W addition it was new material, added badly and after the article was semi-protected based on other IP editors.  When I removed it the first time I was accused of being a S&W employee.  Very clearly not an assumption in good faith.  When the IP editor's actions got the page semi-protected again, Factfindingmission logged in and again added the material and the accusations.  The editor was blocked for a week after that.  When they were unblocked, back again.  Given the nature of the edit, the accusations associated with it etc I was not interested in trying to work that one out.  Since the edit was made another editor has removed the same material and two other editors thanked me for the removal.  Basically I think it was a good call in that case.
 * OK, all that said, I'm going to again thank you for this discussion. Hopefully, you agree or at least feel my reasons weren't simple suppression of information at this point.  I'll close with a comment.  If you ever question one of my edits, I will always try to give you as complete an answer as possible on my talk page if you ask.  I'm kind of a Dave Rubin fan and much of that is because he is always interested in keeping an open discussion even when people don't agree.  This is why I'm working hard to not accuse others of white washing/tarring and why I've been dumping long texts into people's talk pages.  Take care!  Springee (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The articles are supposed to be based on independent, secondary sources, not act as a publishing platform for org's publicity materials. The fact that we are discussing this edit makes it controversial. I occasionally edit articles on organisations and it's a fairly common tactic to fill articles to the brim with self-cited, laudatory material. See for example this series of edits on Hillel International.
 * To give you another example: I've already mentioned HIAG. When I was developing the article, imagine if I said to myself:
 * Let me break out my issues of Der Freiwillige ("The Volunteer"), because it would be "even better if [HIAG] has a statement that is a direct response to our news article, but their public statements related to controversial issues for which they have received criticism should absolutely be included."
 * The part in italics is a direct quote of what you said at the NRA Talk page. If I did that, the article would have been thinly-veiled neo-Nazi propaganda. If this sounds ridiculous, why is this approach appropriate for the NRA article?
 * In general, my advice would be to read WP:NOTADVOCATE and take it to heart. Be a bit more critical of NRA-produced materials and allow some distance from and scepticism of what the org claims vs what independent, third-party sources say. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point but I would also counter that the NRA is not a neo-nazi organization and we can find mainstream sources that agree with the NRA's positions on many of these issues. I don't at all agree that presenting the POV of an organization is a NOTADVOCATE.  I don't think any would apply since we are talking about a public debate regarding public policy with a group that is frequently discussed with respect to that debate.  The NRA has a great deal of public support and it's views are of significant interest even if people oppose them.  Furthermore, if a RS raises the issue, for example the laws/ideas associated with the gun show loop-hole then it's perfectly reasonable to present both sides of the issue (NYT says NRA's is wrong for wanting X, NRA says they want X because of Y and Z), that is the critic and the criticized.  How can we expect readers to understand the issue if we self-censor half of the discussion.  In other articles we cite corporate replies to criticism and note the response.  This shouldn't be different.
 * I know that people will say, find a RS that presents the NRA's position. I'm sure they exist but it's not always easy to find simply because there is so much material.  Also, it's easy to find RSs that express the same arguments as the NRA on a particular issue but that would be a WEIGHT or OR issue.  For example if the NYT says gun rights advocates are against X because of Y.  We can't assume that the NRA is the advocate in question.  The NRA might have the same argument on their website but it would be SYN for us to tie the two together.
 * It would be easy if the topic were say "the gun show loop-hole" to say present the gun control side and then the gun rights side. Prominent organizations on both sides of the debate could be quoted just as we might quote noted experts in the field of politics when discussing public policy.  However, since this is an article about the NRA the views of other gun rights groups or articles that share the NRA's views aren't on topic. That doesn't mean the NRA's responses are somehow not encyclopedic.  That was the view that came out of here [] with the proviso that statements can't be assumed truthful.  The article talks a lot about the controversies with the NRA's lobbying and impact on elections but very little on what they are actually lobbying for.  If the NRA is criticized for opposing a policy or law, especially something fundamental in many gun-control debates like universal background checks we should make sure both sides are presented.  It makes for a better article.  I would like to put a lot of those debates into the article but inside of the current structure it isn't easy and I would hate to invest the time only to have people accuse me of whitewashing or being an NRA stooge (I've never been and likely never will be an NRA member).
 * I hope I've swayed you a bit (or at least you accept my previous answer). Even if we still disagree thanks for the polite discussion.  It's always appreciated.  Springee (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

One point of clarification
Hi there, since I see you've posted a similar comment at both AN/I and the Village pump, "service" was not a term I introduced to the discussion; that was Robert McClenon, as you can ctrl-F here. A small point perhaps, but I recognize the favor represented by volunteers taking time out from their own projects to review requests, so I felt compelled to point it out. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going by your comment on how …too often it has not been much of a service, but I can see that you could have been mirroring RM’s language. Apologies. I adjusted my comment to eliminate a direct reference to your statement. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's right. Thanks for doing so. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input
I wanted to offer you a sincere for taking the time to give feedback at a recent AN/I discussion involving myself. I really appreciated reading what you and everyone else had to say on the matter. It meant a lot to me to hear this feedback from my peers. Thank you again!      Spintendo       07:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it was helpful; sorry it was not much. Dealing with the edit request queue does not sound like fun! I also comment at WP:VPP: permalink with additional suggestions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)