User talk:K.e.coffman: Difference between revisions

Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff

You might be interested in watching the above article - an IP-hopping Nazi apologist appears to be at work. I've been keeping tabs on the situation, but another set of eyes can't hurt. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@BB-PB: Thanks for letting me know; I will keep an eye out. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a week, since our friend can't seem to help himself. If you're curious, the Huerter article that Kienle cites is available here if you have access to Jstore (and a desire to improve the Gersdorff article). Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: No, thank you for volunteering. I heard that the RfA was record-breaking -- congrats! K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Panzer Ace" revision

Dear K.e.coffman: I am writing this on your Talk page because I want to question your reverting of my edits on the '"Panzer Ace" in popular culture" article. This article has many flaws- starting with the fact that it doesn't really deal with Panzer Aces in popular culture but rather tries to denigrate Panzer aces and question why they are popular. Basically this article is a one-sourced editorial by Steven Zaloga- a weird sort of picture book writer/defense think tanker and general US Army propagandist. The point of the article seems to be to claim that German tankers aren't deserving of their obvious popularity among tank buffs because their tanks were too good and some of their exploits may have been exaggerated! "Panzer Aces" should be about the men themselves and why they are the rock stars of tank history- kill numbers and superior equipment and training. The fact is that any unbiased tank warfare historian recognizes the inferiority of American tanks (until the Pershing) and that the meat and potatoes of tank warfare happened in the East between Germans and Russians. I will try again when I have time to correct some of the obvious editorializing in this article or else try to figure a way to make the article neutral instead of biased. Thanks much, JeffMakumbe (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've just reverted this POV-pushing material. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Makumbe: thank you for your message. I commented at Talk:"Panzer_ace"_in_popular_culture#Tagging this article.. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

Good Morning K.e.coffman,

You have marked the Wiki page for David R. Paolo for deletion, I'd like to know why you have made this request and what can be done to correct the issue. The site was created by [removed]. I have reached out to him several times but have not received a response.

Your assistance in the matter would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:aa00:9d90:b40b:5dfe:2c2:7a95 (talk)

Reinhard Peters

I just created Reinhard Peters (conductor), dab because Reinhard Peters is a redirect. Now you say that man is not notable. Should the (unlinked) redirect then point to the conductor? Or the conductor even moved? Article history? In German, only the conductor has an article, the name is a dab with two red links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I moved the page, leaving the spot open for the conductor's article. Please feel free to move it to Reinhard Peters. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, moved. Will have to change the links, but have no time right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Opening an AfD with a keep recommendation

Hello K.e.coffman,

I would like to ask for your advice on how to proceed with Picaboo after the no-consensus close. If you and the other editors involved are interested I would like to open a second AfD. I still think it meets the requirements for inclusion. If it does it should be kept and if it does not it should be deleted. I think we should be able to reach a consensus, therefore I would like to debate with you and the other experienced editors that recommended its deletion weather notability is met and when a source or an article should be considered promotional. I think it could be a very interesting discussion, at least for me, however, I am not sure if it is correct for the editor that opens the AfD to !vote for it to be kept. I would really appreciate your advice on this. Best regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: I don't close AfDs so I don't know how admins close those started with a "keep" rationale. You might want to enquire with a closing admin. In general, I'd probably give it about a month until a new AfD; otherwise, it might feel that we are re-arguing the old one. Hope this helps! K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Your advice is indeed very helpful. My idea was to continue the argument of the closed one to fully understand the rationale from the very experienced people that think it should be deleted, but I can see now that that opening a new AfD for that reason would clearly be a mistake. I think it makes more sense to open a discussion on the talk page of the article itself. I will invite the people involved in the AfD. If you have the time, I will really appreciate your input. Best regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Panzer Ace revision

Thanks K.e.coffman. I've been told in no uncertain terms by Nick-D that anything I try will be frustrated. I've tried to show that the awe of the Panzer aces is not a new thing as implied in this article. (I remember it from old 1960s movies) I've tried to include kill numbers of German tankers vs. American and Russian ones, I've tried to delete the "Nazi fan-boys" comment and I've tried to propose a list which would be simply "Top German Tank Commanders of WW2". Nick-D has called this tack a POV Fork, he has reverted all my edits as being badly sourced although I used sources from other wikipedia articles and he has threatened to put a block on my account if I edit the Panzer Aces page. How do I get others' opinions on this? I'm used to scientific article editing which has less opportunity for bias. My whole object in this is simply to give the kill numbers for each commander, a short biography and leave it at that. I don't find the sociological tract included in most articles on the Panzer guys (usually called "Analysis") to be appropriate- it is thinly disguised pro-Western, pro-USA bias. Are there others who share my feelings about this subject or did all interested parties really come up with this ungainly poorly written piece? Thanks for your help- I do not want to get out of line as Nick-D has made me feel like I'm on thin ice. He keeps telling me to try to improve the article yet reverts 99% of what I do- he also becomes quite stern as if I'm a troublemaker. I'm putting this on your Talk page because I don't want any trouble at this point. If you have suggestions please le me know, Thanks, Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Makumbe: Where would the "kill" numbers come from? Tanks are not capital ships to be able to give an accurate accounting of how many were lost to a specific crew. Separately, I find the term "tank ace" to be a misnomer, given the teamwork required. Why is only the tank commander considered an "ace"? What about the loader, gunner, driver, etc -- shouldn't we refer to them as "aces", too? Etc. As I said on the Talk page, feel free to reach out to WP:NPOVN; when Talk page discussions stall, it's a good place to seek additional input. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly right K.e.coffman- tank "Aces" are different. Where do these numbers come from? Obviously some Panzer crews were very effective and knocked out scores of tanks- right? Or is it all wartime propaganda? But I'm not talking necessarily having "Ace" anywhere in the title. How 'bout just Famous German Tankers? Or as I suggested to Nick-D- The Mythos of the German Panzer Ace? That way there is a neutral POV- one can talk about the BS propagandistic "history" surrounding Panzer "Aces" and still explain why "Nazi fan-boys" adulate them. The way the article is written now it is basically a Coat-Rack to talk about how German tankers' exploits in WW2 are exaggerated or revisionist propaganda. Hardly neutral. And I notice that no one actually disputes the high numbers of kills- even S. Zaloga says his whipping boy Michael Wittman knocked out at least 120 tanks. As far as using WP:NPOVN I'm not sure how to do it and I've pretty much been warned it will be a "drive-by tag" which is bad. You are very civil and kind to take time- I told Nick-D I'd cool it for now but I'll keep using the NPOV thing in mind. How can I bring this up on the Panzer Ace Talk page so others see it? Or has everyone just accepted the article the way it is? I'm used to editing more scientific stuff where things seem more straightforward. I've never met a hostile administrator before this experience.Makumbe (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Arjayay and myself have provided you with advice on how to constructively suggest changes to this article. Given that there hasn't been much discussion on the talk page, and you have not provided any evidence to substantiate a claim that the article doesn't reflect different viewpoints appropriately (the question being which reliable sources aren't being reflected in the article?), escalating the discussion to a central board is premature. I and others are actually pretty keen to improve the article, so if there are a broader range of reliably sourced views please provide further details on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

OK- I've been reading up on wikipedias's rules and suggestions and one is "Keep your cool". I stumbled on to this whole thing simply because out of curiosity I wanted the name of the German Panzer guy who had the most kills in WW2. There is NO such list in all of wikipedia. I go to wikipedia and CANNOT find out the answer to this simple question. Because instead I'm treated to a sociological, political and revisionist explanation of how there was really no such thing- the list has evolved into this cobbled mess. Go to wikipedia- can't find the answer. Because of "consensus". Somehow I'm not sure you had consensus- I have a feeling people just gave up. As far as sources- why don't you help me? Are S. Zaloga and Neitzel the only go-to guys? Somehow I doubt many of Zaloga's books are from original sources- Neitzel yes but his POV is overtly hostile to the Wehrmacht. You spend a lot of time degrading Zulowski- I guess he's another hero of "Nazi fan-boys"- your Neutral POV term for people like me. I told you I give up. K.e.coffman contacts me helpfully and again I'm in an imbroglio with Nick-D who claims he and Arjayay gave me suggestions. No- they did not. Reverting and nasty comments (Arjayay called me a sock puppet- Nick-D threatened consequences at least twice- said I didn't read the article which I have a dozen times) are not helpful. I have never had this trouble before on wikipedia- everyone has gone out of their way to be helpful and polite.Makumbe (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Afghan Knights

You have a point. Although cheap films sometimes become "cult", this one didn't. I agree to a deletion. NordhornerII (talk)I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 08:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DeSilva+Phillips

Hi. K.e.coffman. I found another article on the firm's website about their founding as a firm. "The Media Bankers" Co-Founders Reed Phillips and Roland DeSilva are on the cover and the article begins to talk about the firm on PDF page #3, article page #35 right hand column. Is this the type of independent, journalist coverage that is helpful? ---Deaconbluesx 06:53 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability tag

Hello K.e.coffman,

There seems to be a consensus that Picaboo meets WP:GNG (Please see Talk:Picaboo#Debate_on_weather_this_article_meets_WP:GNG_and_if_it_violates_WP:PROMO) so I think it would now make sense to remove the notability tag from the article. If you don't agree or if you want to add any comments to the discussion you are more than welcome to share your views there. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Again, I have not received an answer to the request made at Talk:Picaboo#Debate_on_weather_this_article_meets_WP:GNG_and_if_it_violates_WP:PROMO for you to analyze the sources of the article and tell me which do you consider meet the requirements set by our general notability guidelines and which you think are not valid and why quoting the relevant guideline or policy. If you need more time to analyze the sources that's perfectly fine, but if that is the case please let me know. When we tag an article we should be willing to justify the reasons. The fact that the AfD closed with no consensus is not a valid enough reason to add a notability tag. A notability tag is justified only if WP:GNG is not met. All participants from the AfD have been pinged: Ritchie333 said that now the article is probably a keep, after a very constructive dialogue with DGG even though he pointed out another issue, he found no objections based on policy toward's it meeting GNG and Unscintillating also feels notability is clearly established. If you agree please remove the tag, if not I look forward to reading your analysis. Regards --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

International Commission for Military History

Hello, I've restored and moved the page to User:K.e.coffman/International Commission for Military History. Looks like you were planning to translate the German version (which is rather short too)? Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 02:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Walter Adolph

Can you fix these redlinks you created? Srnec (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Srnec: Thanks; I fixed the various lists. The rest of the articles were linking through a template, which I nominated for deletion at this TfD (among others). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of TimeTiger

Hello K.e.coffman,

I appreciate your notifying me of your review of the TimeTiger article. I have edited the page to address the concerns you indicated. I have made an effort to reduce the advertorial tone in the writing and present a more neutral representation of the topic. In additional I have added references to two project management and productivity books released by major publishing houses in which TimeTiger is discussed. It is true that this page is currently my only contribution to Wikipedia, but my connection to the topic is declared in the Talk page.

I am new here, and still learning. I am open to any additional feedback you offer with respect to this page and its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Geneg1 (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop!

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Fist for Fight, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Primo Victoria, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Attero Dominatus, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Metalizer, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at The Art of War (Sabaton album), you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You seem to be on some self righteous crusade to cull the pages you deem "not independently notable". You are no alpha and omega here and the blankings of 5 pages you made can hardly be called "acting in good faith", they were destructive and disruptive especially with a summary which was lacking at best. From what I saw it is not the 1st time you are accused of such behavior. Why you did, and keep doing that is beyond me but just stop - you are wrong. I will not ask politely again nor will I involve myself in a dispute over this here. Do you comply? Tyrael pl (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)