User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2016/August

Soldaten

Hi K.E. An excellent book that I strongly recommend. [[1]] Basically a work by a German sociologist and a historian colleague, who stumbled upon a vast cache of evesdropped material that was recorded and transcibed by British and U.S. intellegence elements. All original material gleaned from bugged conversations amongst German P.O.W's of a variety of arms of service and ranks. Fascinating material enclosed that you may find useful. I intend deploying it as a source where appropriate. Take a look :) Irondome (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: Yes, I had the book and I used it in some articles, such as in Kurt Meyer. I agree that it's a great book and really delves into the psychology of warfare. I mostly listened to it in audiobook format, which was a bit disturbing. Here's an interview with one of the authors:

• "Mindset of WWII German Soldiers": Video on YouTube—interview with the historian Sönke Neitzel discussing his book Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing and Dying, via the official channel of The Agenda, a programme of TVOntario, a Canadian public television station.

I've even attempted to use the book to answer the question "what does this [Wehrmacht mythology/war crimes] have to do with these fighting men?", but was unsuccessful :-) See: Talk:Otto Kittel#Revert. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

List of KC recipients

If you feel that the entries should be removed I suggest the following approach. First, get consensus since the lists are all A-class or FAC, which includes these entries. Second, in addition to the removal change the lead to reflect the removal otherwise the articles become inconsistent. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Good idea; I created a discussion topic at MilHIst Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

question

I just stumbled across the article of Artur Phleps. This article makes use of a book by Otto Kumm, a former Nazi. Is this reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.145.131.134 (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review

I am notifying everyone who took part in the AFD discussion on Daniel Romanovsky. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 3 Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Thoughtmonkey: Thanks for letting me know. I was surprised at the close; I did not see a consensus to delete. I commented at the DR link. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

PROD notices

@K.e.coffman: Why are you leaving all these messages about AfD's on the Military History talk page? I don't think this is a good idea because you are overwhelming the page. And for example, my discussion, which is important got sandwiched in between these. I can see one AfD in a day but not ten or more. This is not what this project discussion page is for. So, I am going to ask you to please stop. This is disrupting the page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Deletion of Knight's Cross holder articles has been a matter of some controversy, so I wanted to make sure the project was informed. I posted to the MilHist Talk page with a solution that I hope would work for everyone. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Solidaridad

Hi,me, again... I removed the PROD on Solidaridad. You were right to view it as a promotional piece, but a non-promotional (or at least less promotional) version exists. The organisation has been covered by various (Dutch) sources (Trouw, NOS, Financieele Dagblad, NRC) and even sports it's own tax-evasion scandal (a Panama-construction). I will address the sourcing issues tomorrow and extend the article a bit. Kleuske (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kleuske: No problem; I look forward to the improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Your proposed deletion of Suzannah Dunn

I have deproded this as coverage was easily found in the first few pages of a Google search from sources such as The Guardian, Paste, Kirkus Reviews, and the BBC. Your prod rationale stated "significant RS coverage cannot be found" - where exactly did you look? --Michig (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"Unofficial" KC awardees

Since some of these people might show up in various references as awardees, it might be advisable to create a list of all these people, with redirects from the original article titles, just so people can understand why the award wasn't official. Still plowing through all the various diffs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rommel myth

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rommel myth 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 Biblioworm -- Biblioworm (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

As to the deletion of "deepin"

Hi there, I just found out that "deepin" has been deleted for "not notable" and "not significant in its particular field". So I got deeply, deeply confused, because as far as I concern, deepin, whose popularity currently ranking 14 on distrowatch among Linux distributions, while SliTaz (no offense, just an example, randomly selected) ranking 91, got a wiki-page. Actually I randomly checked several distros ranking below 50 and no surprise, they all have a wiki-page, so we just do not understand why is this happening. We are just a free open source distro trying to contribute to the community. We have submitted millions of strings in Github. So please, do please give instructions. AlickDeepin (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

References

@AlickDeepin: could you help me understand which article this it about? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm replying on my talk page. I think one reply should suffice. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is my reply --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Noted, reading. Thanks for the prompt reply. AlickDeepin (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Topic notability

I noticed at Cavarrone's talk page that you stated you're still learning regarding deletion matters on Wikipedia. So, I figured I'd send you this note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. I state this because sometimes users base notability only sources in articles, rather than total available sources. Regarding source searching itself, check out this essay I devised a while ago: Wikipedia:Advanced source searching. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles on WikiProject Deletion sorting/China

Hi, would you be willing to take a look at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakka Americans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hokkien and Hoklo Americans, both are listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China?--Balthazarduju (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Balthazarduju: I sympathise, but I believe if I respond at the AfD it would be considered canvassing. You could try posting to the Talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject China and / or Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan along the lines of "there's a discussion going on about "Article" at "AfD Article". Notifying a relevant project is not considered canvassing, as I understand it. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have no idea what the consensus will be on those knights Cross afds--you may be right that all of them will be deleted. But I've learned from experience than when challenging the notability of a large group of related articles, it is prudent to send only a few at a time, starting with the weakest, and wait for the results of them. Then in those cases where it turn out consensus is against me, I do not have the work of sending the others, and the rest of the people interested don't have the work of dealing with them either. And when it turns out consensus is indeed with me, it is much less difficult to delete the others, because a much less extensive argument is needed. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: As I have mentioned on your Talk page, (I believe) this consensus has already been achieved. All of these articles are equally weak, as they fail even the low bar of WP:SOLDIER #1 for WWII Germany; there's no substantial coverage; if the coverage exists, it comes from neo-Nazi publications or authors described as Waffen-SS/Wehrmacht "admirers"; and the related project has been notified and no objections raised. So I find AfDs in this case to be an unnecessary exercise. But since the PRODs were declined, this is the only avenue remaining. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

that's not my point. My point is that there's an easier way for anyone trying to accomplish what they want. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) a t/p/s known but not currently wanted by the police (to my knowledge). K.e, I basically agree with your stance, but I would follow DGG's advice here, based on his huge AfD related experience. Adopt a gradualist approach, pick the low-hanging fruit first, and be patient. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have also learned to be careful because when AfD is largely occupied, this can affect it too thus my heavy activities there; you know you'll see me around though. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

DHI (company)

I saw the section you added and removed at User talk:Drmies, and since I can read Danish, I took the liberty of brushing up the article (and linking it to the one on da.wikipedia). I used one of your two references. I agree with your feeling that it's notable, but since there is a DHI Group, I've raised a concern on the talk page about the title. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Winnipeg

[For background: User talk:Bearcat#Global cities note, K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC) ]

I'm not at all opposed to establishing a consensus to narrow the standard somewhat so that the lowest "global city" categories, such as the "sufficiency" class, would be taken out. In reality, I'm not all that strongly wedded to the idea that Winnipeg's city councillors should be considered notable enough — I note, for example, that of the newly elected city councillors at the most recent municipal election in Winnipeg, nobody's ever even bothered starting a new article about any of them (and I'm certainly not all that inclined to start them myself either), whereas in many other cities it still happens right away on election night. My only issue is that we have to follow the right process to get there, because if all we do is deny or pretend that the old consensus ever actually existed in the first place, then what's to stop anybody else from arbitrarily decreeing that no consensus ever existed for city councillors in Toronto or New York City or Chicago or London either, and therefore they have to go too?

I do agree that "sufficiency class" shouldn't be considered enough anymore — all I'm asking is that the discussion be undertaken from the perspective that we're actively formulating a new consensus to deprecate an old one, because acting as if the prior consensus never even existed in the first place would set a dangerous precedent. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bearcat: I concur. What would be the best avenue to arrive at a consensus? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The way forward would be for the deletion arguments to be formulated more along the lines of "While acknowledging that consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as one of the cities where a city councillor was accepted as notable under NPOL #2, I believe that it shouldn't anymore because [insert specific reasons why the past consensus should be overturned here]." That would be a very different argument than the one that's been taking place so far, and even I would be almost certain to strike my original votes and agree with an argument that was formulated that way. The thing I can't agree with is simply handwaving the old consensus away as never having existed in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Re AfD

I'm fine with your acknowledgement about the noms. As I said I have not looked indepht into your recent AfD/prod/bold redirect contributions, but hundreds of deletion-related edits in a few hours, one per minute/couple of minutes, as you can imagine is a rate way below a reasonable standard of careful review of an article and relevant WP:BEFORE. Especially if the few contributions I reviewed consist of pile-on votes with vague copy-pasted rationale ("non-notable on its own") and a couple of very bad noms. You are a relatively new editor, you are certainly in good faith, and everyone makes mistakes, but let me remind you of WP:NOTAVOTE (in AfDs votes have no weight if they are not supported by strong arguments) and WP:NEXIST (notability is based on the existence of sources, not on their immediate citation or on the state of an article). And a tag for notability does not mean the subject is non-notable (eg., I recently expanded and sourced an article tagged for n. since 2011, and the subject was an absolute major name in Italian entertainment industry [2]). In future, just comment/start a deletion discussion when you have made some previous researches, and explain (possibly in details) why the subject fails our notability guidelines. P.S. I just looked at your user page and at first glance you seems to have done a great work on WWII pages, an argument I am coincidentally very interested, keep it up! Any edit in something you have a real knowledge is worthier than 1000 casual edits on arguments you have no consciousness nor interest. Regards, Cavarrone 07:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: I'm painfully aware of the requirements for sources as can be seen, for example, in this massive discussion that I started: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles (For tl:dr version, please see Part 3).

But just because sources may be out there, I don't see keeping an article that has not been expanded beyond a stub in eight years. (Coinsidently, hundreds of the Knight's Cross Holder articles were created in 2008, same as the start of the backlog at CAT:NN). Or the case of many of the "corporate spam" articles (this is somebody else's term, not mine :-) ) History, Product, Recognition, Funding -- this is a cookie cutter formula that makes one article indistinguishable from the next. I'm also surprised at the sources being brought up in discussions, such as CRN and SmallBizTrends.com, which are often pay-per-play. In military history, I'm used to articles based on books written by historians, so perhaps my standards are too high.

@Cavarrone: Thank you for the feedback. It does bother me a bit when Wikipedia is used for promotional purposes or to advance a certain point of view (i.e. WWII mythology). That's how it all started for me: I came across an article on Arthur Nebe which stated that he "worked to reduce atrocities committed". I had to do a double take, as in, "is this the same Arthur Nebe of the gas vans??" So yes, there's a certain crossover between my AfD contributions and WWII. But as you advise, I will be more conscientious in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Short reply: Inre short/stub articles, check out WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Also a short reply Wikipedia:The deadline is now. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: For articles that aren't about things popular in North America/Europe there is a Systemic bias regarding them; it is difficult to find the same quality of sources (at least in a language that is accessible to most editors) but that doesn't mean that the topic is not notable. Try to be aware of that when reviewing stubs. Falconjh (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes,s stubs have been accepted into WP from the start. When I joined 8 years ago, there were some people questing the purpose of articles that could never be expanded bwyond a stub, but the consensus was very firmly that even those were acceptable, if that's what the subject called for. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda on the main page

This really takes the cake. In defence of whoever wrote the blurb, the corresponding German referendum, 1934 was for some mad reason using a 1935 American reference to claim that the referendum was basically OK. I've just corrected this, but it might be something to look out for elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing external links

Hi - we've bumped into each other on a couple of article for deletion discussions. Thanks for your efforts to improve the site. I'm quite impressed with the massive amount of work you've done related to correcting info about World War II. You've likely already read it already, but I found Berlin: The Downfall 1945 to be an excellent book. I have a special interest in the subject as my German mother's father was drafted into the German army at a late age, and was captured by the Americans while trying to get home during D-Day and and spent time in a prisoner of war camp. I wanted to point out something I noticed about your edits. You've deleted a few company URLs from external links sections. WP:ELOFFICIAL specifically lists URLs as info that should be in this section. I didn't want your valuable editing time to go to waste. Another book I recommend is First, Break All the Rules, by Gallup's Curt Coffman, if only for the irony of the title and the similarity in your names. Cheers.Timtempleton (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Thank you for your comment. DGG has clarified that for me, so I'm not removing the web site from external links. However, many of the company articles are promotional, such as Zadara Storage, which I edited to remove intricate detail, coat rack and promotional language: diff. Since you also edited this article, please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There are a wide range of opinions about what's promotional versus newsworthy. Like gymnastics and ice skating, it can be very subjective. Some people might feel that the names of the founders are important - the inclusion of the founder's field in the company infobox template strongly supports this position. My version had them - yours does not. The genesis of an odd and interesting sounding name is also something that is often included, especially if there's an independent corroborating source. My version had Zadara's name backstory - yours does not. I also try to walk the fine line between showing a company is notable without coming across as a shill. When an article is nominated for deletion, as this was, sometimes the only way to save it is to demonstrate the broad nature of media coverage. The more info that is removed, the higher the likelihood that this will come up for deletion again. I'll keep this one on my watch list, and will add a note to the talk page with a link to my version in case anyone else tries to nominate it again and isn't looking at the full story.Timtempleton (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

DataCore Software

Hi. I noticed you've been engaged in a major rewrite/improvement of the DataCore Software article. I've got no problem with any of the edits you've made, but I've been trying to reintroduce some of the information in a more neutral tone. I don't see why the awards can't be mentioned in the article; I've never seen any guidelines on Wikipedia that give a general threshold of notability of awards to be included in an article. I'd say it's similar to naming the members of a musical group; I previously tried to only include the most popular/prominent members of the hip hop group Pro Era in the infobox because it has so many members, but other editors brushed that approach aside for the same reason (no general threshold of notability of musicians to be included in an article/list). Besides, from what I can tell, those awards are quite major in the software/tech industry (e.g. other winners of SVC Awards include SUSE, Dell and Google). Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 20:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Davykamanzi: Thank you for your note. I responded on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

SVC will give anything to ones who pay. It could be a good idea to ban them from Wikipedia. Suse, Google, and Dell SVC awards can be removed safely as well. NISMO1968 (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Tenner BRD

I've reverted your edits in accordance with WP:BRD and invite you to discuss the matter on the talk page. I've also invited two other editors that agreed the original article was overly promotional. I'm hoping we can reach an understanding of what should and shouldn't be included in a biographical article. Thanks in advance for your contribution on the subject. Wilipino (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wilipino: Thank you for your note; I responded at Talk:Lisa Tenner‎. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

VMTurbo

Hi there! I'm planning to apply some serious modifications to VMTurbo page. One question so far: What awards they list are worth being kept? IDC? Gartner? Thanks in advance! NISMO1968 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Wehrmacht

Hi, I haven't been on Wikipedia much in the past several months, but when I stopped by the Wehrmacht article the other day I noticed that a large section of material I had previously researched and added had been removed. My purpose here is not to argue or anything like that; I'm simply curious as to why. Were there questions about the source itself, or was the material simply deemed to be of no value? Like I said, I'm not trying to start any disputes here; more than anything I'm just curious. I left a query on the talk page, but I figured you might not have seen it, so I thought I might stop by here. Thanks, and have a great day! - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ecjmartin: Thank you for you comment. Are you perhaps referring to the content based on Handbook on German Military Forces (1945)? If yes, I addressed my concerns at Talk:Wehrmacht#Soldiers_section. In either case, we could continue the discussion on the article's Talk page. I would be open to that. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll answer on the article talk page. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)