Hi K.e.coffman. While I do not disagree that the Friedrich-Wilhelm Heinz is somewhat laudatory and dismissive of the crimes committed by the regime under which the man served, the site is actually exhaustively informative (despite its unjustifiably glossy veneer). While you are not wrong to delete it, could it not have been described as I've done here vice its total omission? If you see its existence on there as offensive altogether, then I respect that, but it is/was very interesting to read. Moreover, it also demonstrates how such perpetrators were able to live respectable lives despite their possible complicity in atrocities (thanks at least in part to the Cold War) and is historically significant for that reason as well. While I am not going to contest your choice to omit it, I just thought you may want to take such matters into consideration as well. -- Obenritter ( talk) 00:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You are welcome to review the progress on User:DerekvG/sandbox/edits_fortifications_Antwerp -- DerekvG ( talk) 13:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman. The page Manas Energy Management has been deleted from Wikipedia. The company is a multinational entity which is providing energy management solutions for water and electricity mostly in Africa. Please review and hopefully bring back the deleted material. If you need more references on the company from reliable sources, i will arrange it once the page is back. Thanks in advance... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimakerrs ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman: Just curious on what facts you feel are "fiction" in the Gurian article you favor deleting? Perhaps you could reassess your recommendation in light of the rewording of the article. Kind Regards. Tosresearcher ( talk) 02:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For your tireless WW2 work. CCCVCCCC ( talk) 06:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC) |
Might not mean much coming from a once-in-a-blue-moon editor like me, but hey, at least it's not as bad as the Iron Cross!
After your edits of National-Anarchism several footnotes are screwed up. Staszek Lem ( talk) 04:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This happened at ANI today ( permalink, thread "Possible hard-right propaganda on a user page") . Thought you might be interested since you edit all those WW2 articles. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm interested &so are others. We need an intermediate step. But lets keep this separate form individuals. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The majority of sources and the widely held assessment of the party in question, EKRE, judges the party to stand for conservative and national interests and values. This is also in line with what the their party program states, the Estonian parliaments sources and the general discourse by Estonian scholars of political science. If you have differing additional knowledge or material, please do submit them at the talk page of the Conservative People's Party of Estonia before any hasted editing. Thank you! RudiLefkowitz ( talk) 05:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Speaking generally, with respect to Wikipedia's handling of race- or religion-based discrimination, I have very seldom never seen Wikipedia editors collectively and meaningfully over-react to such conduct. Individual editors from time to time have made such errors, but Wikipedia's general bias towards inaction and freshman notions of libertarianism tend to preclude any errors on the side of sensitivity or responsiveness.
Again speaking generally, if an editor innocently expresses themselves in a way that is a) no specifically, obviously, and directly to the benefit of the project and b) gives serious offense to other editors, the mature response is to say "Oops, I definitely didn't mean it that way, but I'll be aware of how I could be (mis)understood if I say things like that, and I won't say them again." Sadly, the reaction is usually "I didn't mean it the way you heard it, so you're a whiny hyper-entitled white-, cis-, Christian-basher." *sigh* If someone is able to coherently, cogently, and reasonably express why another editor's behavior makes them uncomfortable (and especially if it is likely to make others uncomfortable as well), the basic human thing to do is to amend that behavior and not worry about whether or not we're being too politically correct. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey, K.e.c, this is not anything of importance and I ask for no undoing of your revision, but your edit on the Leipzig page made me curious and I've looked at your page and found out that you think Russian is some kind of German POV language. It is not. Russians is a perfectly suitable demonym for Soviet citizens (note: russkie (ethnic Russians) is different from rossiianie (citizen of the Russian Nation(s), regardless of ethnicity. You can be a Chechen living in the Chechen Republic and is a rossiianie). Stalin frequently addressed his own people as the Russians 1 2. Living in a communist state myself, I can say for sure that (the equivalent of) "the Russians" and "citizens of the Soviet Unions" are used much more in books rather than the "Soviets", as the Soviets sound very political and people will imagine that it is not only citizens of the Soviet Union, but "those who supported the ideal/regime." I cannot understand the complaints about "Russians"/"Soviets" instead of "Soviet forces" either, as far as I see "the Germans", "the Americans" are also widespread, in similar contexts. Deamonpen ( talk) 12:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The Soviets have denied our charge.
I get the impression that even in English the focus still lies with the Soviet officials rather than the Soviet people. It sounds really forced to me to avoid Russian like plague like that and I'm pretty sure the Professors (who are usually Communist Party Members themselves, and the old ones have been usually educated in USSR) in my country are anything but influenced by Nazi propaganda. I don't think Stalin was, either. Here it is listed as demonym together with "Soviet." If it's acceptable as a demonym than I see no reason "Russian winter" is not acceptable. Minor problem that I don't care a lot about though. I just don't think it's Nazi propaganda or Nazi term the way you seem to do. Deamonpen ( talk) 09:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
So it's basically a matter of fashion, right? I'm not a Western person and don't know about that. If it's about fashion, then such uses of words by people who read old books or are currently influenced by a non Western culture which still uses such words like me are natural. I repeat that I don't care about anyone changing such minors, but I do think that one perhaps should not promote the idea "Nazi propaganda is existing everywhere" based on such irrelevant details. Deamonpen ( talk) 18:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you please tell me why you keep on making sweeping deletions of the tables regarding victory lists without giving the number of editors who have worked up these articles any discussion or alert of problems arising from the information. I can see from your user page you are a prolific editor, but can you take some time to discuss your issue you have with a page before unilaterally ripping up people's research and work. I don't believe the tables are a copyright infringement, but rather an updated list of the pilots results that included data derived from several sources, NOT just a single source. For my part I have retrieved the same information from this webpage: http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/doc/victories-germany-ww2-1940.pdf which also lists the victories for all the pilots, but in chronological order, rather than by individual pilot. The same information is presented there and needs to be sorted by pilot to be of relevance - I have done that. Is that a breach of copyright to cite the same information from separate sources? If you would take time to compare the tables I set up on the Wiki pages with that at Petr's website you would see that I had not, in fact, just copied them verbatim but had augmented the data that he had listed with further information regarding the unit's basing and the pilot's commanding officer. Also, I do not see how this information can be considered copyright. It is like saying the results of a motor-race or Olympic event are copyright to the first person who publishes the information, which is plainly silly. Do you believe either or both websites are Nazi-apologist sites, glorifying the exploits of German pilots? What evidence on them would lead you to that conclusion? If you take the time to look at Jan Safarik's website, you will see he has an extensive catalogue of pilots from all nations and all forces, from many 20th century conflicts, so I don't believe he is inserting any pro-Nazi bias, intentional or otherwise. When I can look at the Sources pages on both the websites and written sources I see exactly the same references - I can't prove this to you because you don't have access to the books that we article-writers have used, and apparently you do not realise the esteem those references are held in for aviation biography for their renowned accuracy and in-depth detail. I am genuine in my request for advice on how to represent such information for the pilots, or any race or competition's results for that matter, that would be public knowledge without infringing copyright. If you can please reply and let us know your concerns before taking such unilateral action it would be very much appreciated, to give the writers a chance to remedy any issues rather than losing all their research and work Philby NZ ( talk) 10:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
"difference between self-publishing in the 21st century, vs book-publishing in the 20th century", Wikipedia is still in the 20th century (apparently), and requires "reliable secondary sources". Moreover, the profession of a historian is not yet obsolete; they do their research in the archives (using primary sources), and then write books, which are published by academic or otherwise reputable publishers (secondary sources). That's what Wikipedia considers appropriate for military history articles, which is reflected in the current consensus versions of WP:RS and WP:MILMOS. If you believe that a different consensus can be achieved, the place to do that would be at the Talk pages of these articles, or at WP:RSN.
"Removing crap sources always brings out a bit of drama, and sometimes the occasional sea lion, but it needs to be done. We have way too much material sourced to random crappy websites, vanity press books, predatory open access journals and other places where the only barrier to publication is cost."diff
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Thanks for the great work. Light2021 ( talk) 20:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC) |
As an aside, I noticed your recent edits/collection on your user page. I'm not sure that the level of contempt that you're expressing regarding the terminology around "bombing" is fully warranted. While "executed attacks against" is needlessly wordy and has very little to recommend it in favor of the equivalent-but-more-concise "attacked", I don't see it as necessarily a euphemism or a whitewashing that should always be replaced with "bombed".
Rather, I read it as a broader term which includes other non-bomb activities which may have taken place in association with the bombing; everything from air-to-air combat to strafing of ground targets. Your mileage may vary. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I was trying to improve the article based on your and other people's feedback for the "Tank Aces" page, so had removed some of the content duplicated in "Panzer ace" in popular culture. "Panzer ace" in popular culture which from the title, seems to be about German panzer aces fetished in books(???) rather than tank Aces from various countries as a whole? I would suggest that they are combined, and the "Panzer ace" in popular culture is retitled "Tank Ace" and other countries tanks aces are included. I gather there is some backstory of complex arguing about the title, which I am not involved in, but I feel strongly that the concept of tank aces should be broad and reflect tank aces generally, and not just German tank commanders (even if most of the successful ones were in fact, German. "Tank Aces" is used more commonly than "Panzer aces", and it's even used by Wikipedia in the articles about the Russian tank commanders, both of which are described as tank aces. What do you think? Do you know the backstory to the "Panzer ace" in popular culture page, and why it has such an odd title? Deathlibrarian ( talk) 02:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
seems redundant to keep it during AFD [2], but whatever floats your boat. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 21:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman, Thanks for your edits to Schmidt. I have reverted them pro-tem on the basis that the material is of obvious historical interest and belongs on the page. It would be good if you could make the argument re the unreliability of Manstein (although his comment re Schmidt in Soviet jail doesn't seem to me to fall with the ambit of your point) within the article text itself, just a cited line or so, rather than simply on the talk page. I think that removing all of the Manstein quotes is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the ultimate effect being, to switch metaphors, a regrettable loss of colour. Regards, Ericoides ( talk) 06:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you've visited a few pages of SS generals and blanked or otherwise severely trimmed the awards section. Please note that there has been wide consensus, since at least 2004, to include full award lists of Nazi and SS personnel, including political awards and badges. If you want to revisit this policy, I'm sure it can be discussed on the individual article talk pages. Thank you! - O.R. Comms 17:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Posted by Special:Contributions/172.7.129.89 to my user page: The Journal of Historical Review has not been published since 2009 (check it out). My earlier edits associating him with CODOH (which does not have a journal) were correct but, as often seems to happen in Wikipedia, have been reversed, then replaced with material either wrong or badly out of date. No need to reply to me; I'm not a Wikipedia Lawyer, and have no intention of becoming one, tempting as that is.
Hello there,
It is indeed fortunate when a Nazi is prevented from distributing his/her propaganda. On the other hand, one must notice that their work persists as long as the articles they wrote or edited are not reworded in a careful fashion.
Unfortunately, I have very limited time, as mathematics is a fun, but also fairly challenging subject (perhaps the former due to the latter). Thus, I recommend the following procedure for processing articles written by that or similar users:
This procedure may seem overly tedious, but I think that it may be the only way of making sure that we don't miss language that is glorifying of that time or hatred-inspiring. -- Mathmensch ( talk) 11:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I will follow up on your comments above some time later. For now I would like to ask for some background information concerning how things are handled in English Wikipedia. I was up to check the article on Hans Reiter, head of the German Office of Public Health from 1933 to 1945. I found him at Hans Conrad Julius Reiter, where it has been moved in January 2009. Hans Reiter is now dedicated to a, I may dare to say, virtually unknown Untersturmführer of the Waffen-SS (and KC recipient). I suspect hardly anyone who heard of the physician (there's a disease named after his last name) knows him by his full name. In Germany middle names rarely become known. Leaving aside the notability of the KC recipient, which I think is dubious, I would have expected a disambiguation page. Do I have to discuss the issue and where? Should I just proceed to nominate the KC recipient's article for deletion? I refrain from bringing up the issue on the talk page, because I would expect that it is not the most watched. Best regards, -- Assayer ( talk) 20:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi KE, I've reverted your changes to this article because they seem a little excessive. We don't need a citation for every sentence or phrase on Wikipedia and my research to date on this article is that even the "unreliable" sources have been correct where the facts can be corroborated against a "reliable" source. I agree we need to ensure important or contentious claims are properly supported by good sources and I thank you for pointing out those which we should place less reliance on, but these statements are not particularly controversial, and Wikipedia will be the poorer if we have to cite every last jot and tittle. We need to find a sensible middle ground. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 18:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Whpq ( talk) 16:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman, thanks for you thanks over my edit at Talk:Ronald Smelser
Coolabahapple (
talk) 23:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Blocked. Clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, conferring from your comments on the "Panzer aces" you are probably sympathetic to my quest, so I thought I just might drop you a note. As you might imagine, I am not really satisfied with how things are going with the "Panzer aces". I don't want to repeat my arguments here. I may have been overly optimistic and my nomination for deletion appears to have been premature in the sense that time is not yet ripe to simply do away with cherished, but ahistorical beliefs. But I predominantly contribute as an editor to German Wikipedia, where things are, well, a little different. I don't want to paint a too gloomy picture, but it seems as if familiarity with the language and therefore with German historiography helps to take a more critical stance. For example, on this talk page I read someone is considering Manstein's Lost Victories to be a RS, while another has no problem to take a proposal for a KC at face value. (Curiously enough we have here another "Panzertöter" i.e. "Panzer killer", from the Wehrmacht fashioned likewise by Wehrmacht propaganda. Maybe we should move on from the "Panzer Aces" to the "Panzer killers", but I'm getting a little carried away by sarcasm.)
I have frequently been checking articles on KC recipients in the English Wikipedia, because once and again articles on KC recipients come up for deletion in German wikipedia. All too often references are to the English Wikipedia, not at least, because, among others, webpages like feldgrau, axishistory, lexikon der wehrmacht, and various pages carrying "ritterkreuz" in its domain have been blacklisted in the German Wikipedia. Coming across various templates regarding notability and reliable sources in such articles I got the impression that things might have changed for the better in the English Wikipedia. By that I do not mean that KC recipients are now to be purged from Wikipedia for some hidden political agenda, but that a more critical, and thereby historically more accurate assessment may have gained ground. I am by training most familiar with German history, but I do not confine myself to that. Some years ago, e.g., I also did some editing on Smedley Butler. I don't think that citations for American military orders are better than German ones. Both are primary sources, should be put into context and interpreted properly by historians. That may be kicking at an already open door, but I figure that there should be some consensus about which literature is and which is not reliable, that is, which is historically most accurate. Is there a place where the pros and cons of various sources are discussed? It is tedious to repeat explanations as to why a certain source is not as reliable as it seems over and over again. Best regards,-- Assayer ( talk) 00:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
When you removed the BLP prod on Ajdar Ismailov, it showed up as being vandalism on my watchlist. Well, I knew there was something shifty about you. :) Got to love those WMF beta projects. I needed a good laugh. Thank you and the WMF for it. Bgwhite ( talk) 08:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman. While I do not disagree that the Friedrich-Wilhelm Heinz is somewhat laudatory and dismissive of the crimes committed by the regime under which the man served, the site is actually exhaustively informative (despite its unjustifiably glossy veneer). While you are not wrong to delete it, could it not have been described as I've done here vice its total omission? If you see its existence on there as offensive altogether, then I respect that, but it is/was very interesting to read. Moreover, it also demonstrates how such perpetrators were able to live respectable lives despite their possible complicity in atrocities (thanks at least in part to the Cold War) and is historically significant for that reason as well. While I am not going to contest your choice to omit it, I just thought you may want to take such matters into consideration as well. -- Obenritter ( talk) 00:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You are welcome to review the progress on User:DerekvG/sandbox/edits_fortifications_Antwerp -- DerekvG ( talk) 13:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman. The page Manas Energy Management has been deleted from Wikipedia. The company is a multinational entity which is providing energy management solutions for water and electricity mostly in Africa. Please review and hopefully bring back the deleted material. If you need more references on the company from reliable sources, i will arrange it once the page is back. Thanks in advance... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimakerrs ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman: Just curious on what facts you feel are "fiction" in the Gurian article you favor deleting? Perhaps you could reassess your recommendation in light of the rewording of the article. Kind Regards. Tosresearcher ( talk) 02:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For your tireless WW2 work. CCCVCCCC ( talk) 06:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC) |
Might not mean much coming from a once-in-a-blue-moon editor like me, but hey, at least it's not as bad as the Iron Cross!
After your edits of National-Anarchism several footnotes are screwed up. Staszek Lem ( talk) 04:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This happened at ANI today ( permalink, thread "Possible hard-right propaganda on a user page") . Thought you might be interested since you edit all those WW2 articles. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm interested &so are others. We need an intermediate step. But lets keep this separate form individuals. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The majority of sources and the widely held assessment of the party in question, EKRE, judges the party to stand for conservative and national interests and values. This is also in line with what the their party program states, the Estonian parliaments sources and the general discourse by Estonian scholars of political science. If you have differing additional knowledge or material, please do submit them at the talk page of the Conservative People's Party of Estonia before any hasted editing. Thank you! RudiLefkowitz ( talk) 05:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Speaking generally, with respect to Wikipedia's handling of race- or religion-based discrimination, I have very seldom never seen Wikipedia editors collectively and meaningfully over-react to such conduct. Individual editors from time to time have made such errors, but Wikipedia's general bias towards inaction and freshman notions of libertarianism tend to preclude any errors on the side of sensitivity or responsiveness.
Again speaking generally, if an editor innocently expresses themselves in a way that is a) no specifically, obviously, and directly to the benefit of the project and b) gives serious offense to other editors, the mature response is to say "Oops, I definitely didn't mean it that way, but I'll be aware of how I could be (mis)understood if I say things like that, and I won't say them again." Sadly, the reaction is usually "I didn't mean it the way you heard it, so you're a whiny hyper-entitled white-, cis-, Christian-basher." *sigh* If someone is able to coherently, cogently, and reasonably express why another editor's behavior makes them uncomfortable (and especially if it is likely to make others uncomfortable as well), the basic human thing to do is to amend that behavior and not worry about whether or not we're being too politically correct. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey, K.e.c, this is not anything of importance and I ask for no undoing of your revision, but your edit on the Leipzig page made me curious and I've looked at your page and found out that you think Russian is some kind of German POV language. It is not. Russians is a perfectly suitable demonym for Soviet citizens (note: russkie (ethnic Russians) is different from rossiianie (citizen of the Russian Nation(s), regardless of ethnicity. You can be a Chechen living in the Chechen Republic and is a rossiianie). Stalin frequently addressed his own people as the Russians 1 2. Living in a communist state myself, I can say for sure that (the equivalent of) "the Russians" and "citizens of the Soviet Unions" are used much more in books rather than the "Soviets", as the Soviets sound very political and people will imagine that it is not only citizens of the Soviet Union, but "those who supported the ideal/regime." I cannot understand the complaints about "Russians"/"Soviets" instead of "Soviet forces" either, as far as I see "the Germans", "the Americans" are also widespread, in similar contexts. Deamonpen ( talk) 12:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The Soviets have denied our charge.
I get the impression that even in English the focus still lies with the Soviet officials rather than the Soviet people. It sounds really forced to me to avoid Russian like plague like that and I'm pretty sure the Professors (who are usually Communist Party Members themselves, and the old ones have been usually educated in USSR) in my country are anything but influenced by Nazi propaganda. I don't think Stalin was, either. Here it is listed as demonym together with "Soviet." If it's acceptable as a demonym than I see no reason "Russian winter" is not acceptable. Minor problem that I don't care a lot about though. I just don't think it's Nazi propaganda or Nazi term the way you seem to do. Deamonpen ( talk) 09:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
So it's basically a matter of fashion, right? I'm not a Western person and don't know about that. If it's about fashion, then such uses of words by people who read old books or are currently influenced by a non Western culture which still uses such words like me are natural. I repeat that I don't care about anyone changing such minors, but I do think that one perhaps should not promote the idea "Nazi propaganda is existing everywhere" based on such irrelevant details. Deamonpen ( talk) 18:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you please tell me why you keep on making sweeping deletions of the tables regarding victory lists without giving the number of editors who have worked up these articles any discussion or alert of problems arising from the information. I can see from your user page you are a prolific editor, but can you take some time to discuss your issue you have with a page before unilaterally ripping up people's research and work. I don't believe the tables are a copyright infringement, but rather an updated list of the pilots results that included data derived from several sources, NOT just a single source. For my part I have retrieved the same information from this webpage: http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/doc/victories-germany-ww2-1940.pdf which also lists the victories for all the pilots, but in chronological order, rather than by individual pilot. The same information is presented there and needs to be sorted by pilot to be of relevance - I have done that. Is that a breach of copyright to cite the same information from separate sources? If you would take time to compare the tables I set up on the Wiki pages with that at Petr's website you would see that I had not, in fact, just copied them verbatim but had augmented the data that he had listed with further information regarding the unit's basing and the pilot's commanding officer. Also, I do not see how this information can be considered copyright. It is like saying the results of a motor-race or Olympic event are copyright to the first person who publishes the information, which is plainly silly. Do you believe either or both websites are Nazi-apologist sites, glorifying the exploits of German pilots? What evidence on them would lead you to that conclusion? If you take the time to look at Jan Safarik's website, you will see he has an extensive catalogue of pilots from all nations and all forces, from many 20th century conflicts, so I don't believe he is inserting any pro-Nazi bias, intentional or otherwise. When I can look at the Sources pages on both the websites and written sources I see exactly the same references - I can't prove this to you because you don't have access to the books that we article-writers have used, and apparently you do not realise the esteem those references are held in for aviation biography for their renowned accuracy and in-depth detail. I am genuine in my request for advice on how to represent such information for the pilots, or any race or competition's results for that matter, that would be public knowledge without infringing copyright. If you can please reply and let us know your concerns before taking such unilateral action it would be very much appreciated, to give the writers a chance to remedy any issues rather than losing all their research and work Philby NZ ( talk) 10:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
"difference between self-publishing in the 21st century, vs book-publishing in the 20th century", Wikipedia is still in the 20th century (apparently), and requires "reliable secondary sources". Moreover, the profession of a historian is not yet obsolete; they do their research in the archives (using primary sources), and then write books, which are published by academic or otherwise reputable publishers (secondary sources). That's what Wikipedia considers appropriate for military history articles, which is reflected in the current consensus versions of WP:RS and WP:MILMOS. If you believe that a different consensus can be achieved, the place to do that would be at the Talk pages of these articles, or at WP:RSN.
"Removing crap sources always brings out a bit of drama, and sometimes the occasional sea lion, but it needs to be done. We have way too much material sourced to random crappy websites, vanity press books, predatory open access journals and other places where the only barrier to publication is cost."diff
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Thanks for the great work. Light2021 ( talk) 20:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC) |
As an aside, I noticed your recent edits/collection on your user page. I'm not sure that the level of contempt that you're expressing regarding the terminology around "bombing" is fully warranted. While "executed attacks against" is needlessly wordy and has very little to recommend it in favor of the equivalent-but-more-concise "attacked", I don't see it as necessarily a euphemism or a whitewashing that should always be replaced with "bombed".
Rather, I read it as a broader term which includes other non-bomb activities which may have taken place in association with the bombing; everything from air-to-air combat to strafing of ground targets. Your mileage may vary. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I was trying to improve the article based on your and other people's feedback for the "Tank Aces" page, so had removed some of the content duplicated in "Panzer ace" in popular culture. "Panzer ace" in popular culture which from the title, seems to be about German panzer aces fetished in books(???) rather than tank Aces from various countries as a whole? I would suggest that they are combined, and the "Panzer ace" in popular culture is retitled "Tank Ace" and other countries tanks aces are included. I gather there is some backstory of complex arguing about the title, which I am not involved in, but I feel strongly that the concept of tank aces should be broad and reflect tank aces generally, and not just German tank commanders (even if most of the successful ones were in fact, German. "Tank Aces" is used more commonly than "Panzer aces", and it's even used by Wikipedia in the articles about the Russian tank commanders, both of which are described as tank aces. What do you think? Do you know the backstory to the "Panzer ace" in popular culture page, and why it has such an odd title? Deathlibrarian ( talk) 02:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
seems redundant to keep it during AFD [2], but whatever floats your boat. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 21:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman, Thanks for your edits to Schmidt. I have reverted them pro-tem on the basis that the material is of obvious historical interest and belongs on the page. It would be good if you could make the argument re the unreliability of Manstein (although his comment re Schmidt in Soviet jail doesn't seem to me to fall with the ambit of your point) within the article text itself, just a cited line or so, rather than simply on the talk page. I think that removing all of the Manstein quotes is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the ultimate effect being, to switch metaphors, a regrettable loss of colour. Regards, Ericoides ( talk) 06:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you've visited a few pages of SS generals and blanked or otherwise severely trimmed the awards section. Please note that there has been wide consensus, since at least 2004, to include full award lists of Nazi and SS personnel, including political awards and badges. If you want to revisit this policy, I'm sure it can be discussed on the individual article talk pages. Thank you! - O.R. Comms 17:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Posted by Special:Contributions/172.7.129.89 to my user page: The Journal of Historical Review has not been published since 2009 (check it out). My earlier edits associating him with CODOH (which does not have a journal) were correct but, as often seems to happen in Wikipedia, have been reversed, then replaced with material either wrong or badly out of date. No need to reply to me; I'm not a Wikipedia Lawyer, and have no intention of becoming one, tempting as that is.
Hello there,
It is indeed fortunate when a Nazi is prevented from distributing his/her propaganda. On the other hand, one must notice that their work persists as long as the articles they wrote or edited are not reworded in a careful fashion.
Unfortunately, I have very limited time, as mathematics is a fun, but also fairly challenging subject (perhaps the former due to the latter). Thus, I recommend the following procedure for processing articles written by that or similar users:
This procedure may seem overly tedious, but I think that it may be the only way of making sure that we don't miss language that is glorifying of that time or hatred-inspiring. -- Mathmensch ( talk) 11:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I will follow up on your comments above some time later. For now I would like to ask for some background information concerning how things are handled in English Wikipedia. I was up to check the article on Hans Reiter, head of the German Office of Public Health from 1933 to 1945. I found him at Hans Conrad Julius Reiter, where it has been moved in January 2009. Hans Reiter is now dedicated to a, I may dare to say, virtually unknown Untersturmführer of the Waffen-SS (and KC recipient). I suspect hardly anyone who heard of the physician (there's a disease named after his last name) knows him by his full name. In Germany middle names rarely become known. Leaving aside the notability of the KC recipient, which I think is dubious, I would have expected a disambiguation page. Do I have to discuss the issue and where? Should I just proceed to nominate the KC recipient's article for deletion? I refrain from bringing up the issue on the talk page, because I would expect that it is not the most watched. Best regards, -- Assayer ( talk) 20:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi KE, I've reverted your changes to this article because they seem a little excessive. We don't need a citation for every sentence or phrase on Wikipedia and my research to date on this article is that even the "unreliable" sources have been correct where the facts can be corroborated against a "reliable" source. I agree we need to ensure important or contentious claims are properly supported by good sources and I thank you for pointing out those which we should place less reliance on, but these statements are not particularly controversial, and Wikipedia will be the poorer if we have to cite every last jot and tittle. We need to find a sensible middle ground. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 18:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Whpq ( talk) 16:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman, thanks for you thanks over my edit at Talk:Ronald Smelser
Coolabahapple (
talk) 23:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Blocked. Clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, conferring from your comments on the "Panzer aces" you are probably sympathetic to my quest, so I thought I just might drop you a note. As you might imagine, I am not really satisfied with how things are going with the "Panzer aces". I don't want to repeat my arguments here. I may have been overly optimistic and my nomination for deletion appears to have been premature in the sense that time is not yet ripe to simply do away with cherished, but ahistorical beliefs. But I predominantly contribute as an editor to German Wikipedia, where things are, well, a little different. I don't want to paint a too gloomy picture, but it seems as if familiarity with the language and therefore with German historiography helps to take a more critical stance. For example, on this talk page I read someone is considering Manstein's Lost Victories to be a RS, while another has no problem to take a proposal for a KC at face value. (Curiously enough we have here another "Panzertöter" i.e. "Panzer killer", from the Wehrmacht fashioned likewise by Wehrmacht propaganda. Maybe we should move on from the "Panzer Aces" to the "Panzer killers", but I'm getting a little carried away by sarcasm.)
I have frequently been checking articles on KC recipients in the English Wikipedia, because once and again articles on KC recipients come up for deletion in German wikipedia. All too often references are to the English Wikipedia, not at least, because, among others, webpages like feldgrau, axishistory, lexikon der wehrmacht, and various pages carrying "ritterkreuz" in its domain have been blacklisted in the German Wikipedia. Coming across various templates regarding notability and reliable sources in such articles I got the impression that things might have changed for the better in the English Wikipedia. By that I do not mean that KC recipients are now to be purged from Wikipedia for some hidden political agenda, but that a more critical, and thereby historically more accurate assessment may have gained ground. I am by training most familiar with German history, but I do not confine myself to that. Some years ago, e.g., I also did some editing on Smedley Butler. I don't think that citations for American military orders are better than German ones. Both are primary sources, should be put into context and interpreted properly by historians. That may be kicking at an already open door, but I figure that there should be some consensus about which literature is and which is not reliable, that is, which is historically most accurate. Is there a place where the pros and cons of various sources are discussed? It is tedious to repeat explanations as to why a certain source is not as reliable as it seems over and over again. Best regards,-- Assayer ( talk) 00:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
When you removed the BLP prod on Ajdar Ismailov, it showed up as being vandalism on my watchlist. Well, I knew there was something shifty about you. :) Got to love those WMF beta projects. I needed a good laugh. Thank you and the WMF for it. Bgwhite ( talk) 08:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)