At your Signpost contribution, you wrote "I thank The Bugle for providing me with an opportunity to share my perspective." I didn't correct it because I'm not absolutely sure it's a mistake, since maybe it's published there first or something.
By the way, very well written piece, one of the best I've copyedited. We may have to cut the "further reading" bit, but other than that, I see no problems. ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
... for improving article quality in March! Happy Easter! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, were you planning to wrap this up, or were you hoping for another second opinion before making your final decision? If the latter, I can see if I can find an experienced GA reviewer to stop by. Please let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 13:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman, can you take a look at the article Kevin Lilliana, several anons were reverting the article to its original form, but it looks like from one person only in Indonesia. The article has several entries and some with sources cited but the entries can not be found from the sources indicated. Tags were removed by anons without addressing the concerns that were raised. Thanks!- Richie Campbell ( talk) 12:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi You have made 3 reverts to the article
Please revert.-- Shrike ( talk) 19:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:K.e.coffman reported by User:Shrike (Result: ). Thank you. Shrike ( talk) 20:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
You took the time to declare my notification of the Firearms project as "inappropriate notification". Perhaps you should have taken time to read it. These behaviors are listed:
The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." In short, you were wrong to "warn" me about my appropriate behavior. I won't hold my breath for an apology. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
individual [being] told something specific to him, I need to correct this misconception. Because the close literally says (underline mine):
More generally and not directed towards [contributor X], editors editing in this area need to heed how we build consensus: "Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." Furthermore guidelines by Wikiprojects are suggestions, not mandates and any consensus achieved on project pages may be changed/overturned by a wider community discussion drawing in more participants from outside the project. Canvassing amongst project members or by using project pages will be heavily frowned upon.
false allegation/
warningdirected at you, yet seem reluctant to take it further. It appears there's nothing else for me to do. But at least you seem to have backed off your claim that the AE close was addressed to TWC alone, so that's progress I guess. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
individual was told something specific to him(underline in the original), - I hoped that you'd actually acknowledge that the close was directed at editors in general. But it's apparently not worth continuing the discussion in the face of the evidence of said close's exact wording. Okay. Have a nice day. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted and redirected many articles on flying aces with 100+ shootdowns, citing a deletion of a flying ace with 51 kills. There is a huge difference in notability of a Luftwaffe pilot that shot down ~50 Soviet planes (given the kill ratios) and a pilot with 100 or more kills. VERY few pilots have done so, and many of those flying aces shot down many American aircraft (better quality and safer than most Soviet planes). This has led to a navigation template for German flying aces with 100+ kills to be full of a bunch of redirects. While I agree that 50 kills by itself is not notable (although a person with 50+ kills can be notable for another reason, such as making an "aviation first", ex first person to fly a certain plane, etc), people with 100 or more should not be redirected.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 22:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a huge difference in notability of a Luftwaffe pilot shot down ~50 Soviet planes (given the kill ratios) and a pilot with 100 or more kills, could you elaborate? 100+ people are not "VERY few"; that would be perhaps a dozen. Again, why do you think that "50 kills by itself is not notable" while 100 is? I'm curious as to how you made this determination. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Those with 100 kills (...) just a few dozen have done sois not correct. More than 100 Luftwaffe pilots claimed 100+ victories each. Comparing aces across different armed forces is not useful either. Such reasoning did not find support at the RfC that was linked from the Talk page. In any case, Wikipedia determines notability based on significant coverage in reliable sources, not by a number of 'kills' picked at random. Does significant coverage exist on these pilots? K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello K.e.coffman, I began with care to write some lines concerning the history of the centre of this article in Gun_laws_in_Australia#Evolution_of_Gun_laws_in_Australia, because I found a 100% fitting source. Could you help and have a look? In my opinion there is too much (not law concerned) overhead in this article grown by editing over the years. In this case to be found in the first two sections of Gun_laws_in_Australia#History. Please have a look if my grammar is correct and eliminate some overhead. Will you be so kind and help in this case? Best -- Tom ( talk) 08:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Gun use. 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. – dlthewave ☎ 21:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello K.e.coffman, coincidentally I saw your User:K.e.coffman/IP Tracker and that there was a problematic IP from British Columbia. There are more IPs from the same area which have been identified with disruptive edits (especially one IP since 2011). May I draw your attention to User_talk:NeilN#Good_&_bad_news_...? Sorrowfully up to now I could not see whether these findings could be used so far. Best -- Tom ( talk) 09:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Someone undid your creation of the redirect Rudolf von Ribbentrop and made it a full blown article again. I restored the redirect, but largely as a result of your conclusion that he was not notable. Just making sure your judgement still stands. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this. I've just PRODed it, but I'd be guided by your feedback. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Please explain these edits; 1 & 2. Thank you - theWOLFchild 04:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Your approach is the opposite"... and I am genuinely shocked, shocked!, mind you, that you would think that, but the two examples cited here say different. The "focus on content and not on editors" mantra is one that you and your friend K.e. here should pay more attention to. - theWOLFchild 18:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
shocked, shocked!you are is not sufficient. Please explain these edits: [8]; [9]; [10]. Surely you can do that? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
So, "sounds like clerking to me
" is the only explanation you are going to provide. Got it. Like I said, trying to discuss this was a waste of time. Meanwhile, you're asking me to explain three edits (though the first two are the same) and the third is itself the explanation. So, are you really having that much difficty understanding them? Or is this just more gaslighting? Actually, strike that. No more questions, I think we're done here (at least, I am. This is your talk page, so feel free to have the last word). -
theWOLFchild 17:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Strike that. No more questions" out in one edit: [11]. An even more efficient way of striking one's comments is to take them out before hitting "save". But I guess you really wanted to ask those questions, didn't you? Separately, why did you believe that "Not this again. That's not much of an argument. Not all of us have sat here spending our lives reading old arguments" is a personal attack? To the point of edit-warring over it?
The article Erich Hoepner you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Erich Hoepner 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 Euryalus -- Euryalus ( talk) 03:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Your Arbcom case request includes references to the article on Erich Hoepner, as an example of the alleged issue. As you know I recently did a GA review on that article, in my capacity as a random member of Milhist. Am also in a position to vote on the case request in my capacity as a random member of Arbcom.
I haven't (yet) recused from the case because I don't see this piece of fairly minor content analysis as impinging on the likelihood of a fair hearing. But am keen to get your views either way, as a principal participant in the request as it stands. -- Euryalus ( talk) 03:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Just read your Signpost article, excellent and important work. I've come across issues like this over the years in historiography topics. For a while there were editors scrubbing the early medieval articles of "Barbarian" replacing with "Germans". Or the Turkish nationalists who were adamant they were the direct genetic heirs of the Huns (historians actually believe the Huns were a brand name, like a football team, not a racial tribal division). Or those who believe the Dark Ages (historiography) were actually dark (there were some problems in the period but it was mostly a later invention by Italian Humanists to restore the glory of the Roman Empire). Wikipedia needs more historiography-focused articles (like Dark Ages (historiography)) so these issues can be stated clearly. But it's a specialized field to be sure, and they tend to be honey traps for those who disagree. -- Green C 02:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Only just noticed it so I added a comment on the Bugle talk page. I was surprised at what you have found, even though it's been discussed on the MilHist page often enough. In my furrow obsolete texts aren't as ideologically questionable, just bad scholarship or the obsolete stuff of commercial history (the Schlieffen Plan comes to mind) endlessly repackaged like the Hitler channel. It seems to me that Wiki rules contain a conservative corollary which makes truth a matter of quantity of sources, rather than quality. Is there a nationality correlation with the sources (authors and editors) used to whitewash the Hitler regime? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 19:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The single most difficult task all those working on World War II in Europe and North Africa face is the need to penetrate the fog of distortion and confusion generated by the vast German memoir literature, especially that of the generals like Heinz Guderian and Erich von Manstein. Long the basic staple on which secondary literature was based, closer examination of these works with reference to contemporary evidence has shown the memoirs to be almost invariably inaccurate, distorted and, in some instances, simply fake… Scholars in all countries need to liberate their own minds and their own writings from a preoccupation with an enormous collection of dubious works and from the influence of an even larger mass of secondary works largely based on those memoirs.’ [1]
References
In case you are not watching the page above an editor has brought it back to life. As part of NPP I have reverted to you but don't plan to get further involved in this content dispute (of there is one). Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I first read the articles on Karl Dönitz and Erich Raeder back in 2013, when I first got into Wikipedia. I recall that the articles included orders by one and/or the other issued to the U-boat force advocating Nazi discipline. I can't seem to find those entries now. As you know, the U-boat force has one of the "least Nazi" reputations of the German WWII forces, as does Doenitz, who of course was designated by Hitler as his heir. If these orders can be properly sourced, exposing his loyalty to the regime he served so well would be useful. As for aircraft kills, my recollection from years ago is that all three of the "300 club" scored more than half of their kills against unarmed Soviet transport planes, and Marseille was perhaps the only 100+ pilot with most of his kills against the UK and US. I have not looked up these "facts" in 40+ years, so I could be wrong. RobDuch ( talk) 23:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
You're correct about Marseille, but wrong about the others. The Germans rarely encountered Soviet transports, so virtually all of the kills by the Germans on the Eastern Front were of armed aircraft.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
References
I am going to ask you self-revert this before an AE is filed for breaking consensus required. PackMecEng ( talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#K.e.coffman. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
At your Signpost contribution, you wrote "I thank The Bugle for providing me with an opportunity to share my perspective." I didn't correct it because I'm not absolutely sure it's a mistake, since maybe it's published there first or something.
By the way, very well written piece, one of the best I've copyedited. We may have to cut the "further reading" bit, but other than that, I see no problems. ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
... for improving article quality in March! Happy Easter! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, were you planning to wrap this up, or were you hoping for another second opinion before making your final decision? If the latter, I can see if I can find an experienced GA reviewer to stop by. Please let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 13:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman, can you take a look at the article Kevin Lilliana, several anons were reverting the article to its original form, but it looks like from one person only in Indonesia. The article has several entries and some with sources cited but the entries can not be found from the sources indicated. Tags were removed by anons without addressing the concerns that were raised. Thanks!- Richie Campbell ( talk) 12:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi You have made 3 reverts to the article
Please revert.-- Shrike ( talk) 19:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:K.e.coffman reported by User:Shrike (Result: ). Thank you. Shrike ( talk) 20:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
You took the time to declare my notification of the Firearms project as "inappropriate notification". Perhaps you should have taken time to read it. These behaviors are listed:
The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." In short, you were wrong to "warn" me about my appropriate behavior. I won't hold my breath for an apology. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
individual [being] told something specific to him, I need to correct this misconception. Because the close literally says (underline mine):
More generally and not directed towards [contributor X], editors editing in this area need to heed how we build consensus: "Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." Furthermore guidelines by Wikiprojects are suggestions, not mandates and any consensus achieved on project pages may be changed/overturned by a wider community discussion drawing in more participants from outside the project. Canvassing amongst project members or by using project pages will be heavily frowned upon.
false allegation/
warningdirected at you, yet seem reluctant to take it further. It appears there's nothing else for me to do. But at least you seem to have backed off your claim that the AE close was addressed to TWC alone, so that's progress I guess. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
individual was told something specific to him(underline in the original), - I hoped that you'd actually acknowledge that the close was directed at editors in general. But it's apparently not worth continuing the discussion in the face of the evidence of said close's exact wording. Okay. Have a nice day. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted and redirected many articles on flying aces with 100+ shootdowns, citing a deletion of a flying ace with 51 kills. There is a huge difference in notability of a Luftwaffe pilot that shot down ~50 Soviet planes (given the kill ratios) and a pilot with 100 or more kills. VERY few pilots have done so, and many of those flying aces shot down many American aircraft (better quality and safer than most Soviet planes). This has led to a navigation template for German flying aces with 100+ kills to be full of a bunch of redirects. While I agree that 50 kills by itself is not notable (although a person with 50+ kills can be notable for another reason, such as making an "aviation first", ex first person to fly a certain plane, etc), people with 100 or more should not be redirected.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 22:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a huge difference in notability of a Luftwaffe pilot shot down ~50 Soviet planes (given the kill ratios) and a pilot with 100 or more kills, could you elaborate? 100+ people are not "VERY few"; that would be perhaps a dozen. Again, why do you think that "50 kills by itself is not notable" while 100 is? I'm curious as to how you made this determination. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Those with 100 kills (...) just a few dozen have done sois not correct. More than 100 Luftwaffe pilots claimed 100+ victories each. Comparing aces across different armed forces is not useful either. Such reasoning did not find support at the RfC that was linked from the Talk page. In any case, Wikipedia determines notability based on significant coverage in reliable sources, not by a number of 'kills' picked at random. Does significant coverage exist on these pilots? K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello K.e.coffman, I began with care to write some lines concerning the history of the centre of this article in Gun_laws_in_Australia#Evolution_of_Gun_laws_in_Australia, because I found a 100% fitting source. Could you help and have a look? In my opinion there is too much (not law concerned) overhead in this article grown by editing over the years. In this case to be found in the first two sections of Gun_laws_in_Australia#History. Please have a look if my grammar is correct and eliminate some overhead. Will you be so kind and help in this case? Best -- Tom ( talk) 08:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Gun use. 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. – dlthewave ☎ 21:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello K.e.coffman, coincidentally I saw your User:K.e.coffman/IP Tracker and that there was a problematic IP from British Columbia. There are more IPs from the same area which have been identified with disruptive edits (especially one IP since 2011). May I draw your attention to User_talk:NeilN#Good_&_bad_news_...? Sorrowfully up to now I could not see whether these findings could be used so far. Best -- Tom ( talk) 09:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Someone undid your creation of the redirect Rudolf von Ribbentrop and made it a full blown article again. I restored the redirect, but largely as a result of your conclusion that he was not notable. Just making sure your judgement still stands. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this. I've just PRODed it, but I'd be guided by your feedback. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Please explain these edits; 1 & 2. Thank you - theWOLFchild 04:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Your approach is the opposite"... and I am genuinely shocked, shocked!, mind you, that you would think that, but the two examples cited here say different. The "focus on content and not on editors" mantra is one that you and your friend K.e. here should pay more attention to. - theWOLFchild 18:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
shocked, shocked!you are is not sufficient. Please explain these edits: [8]; [9]; [10]. Surely you can do that? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
So, "sounds like clerking to me
" is the only explanation you are going to provide. Got it. Like I said, trying to discuss this was a waste of time. Meanwhile, you're asking me to explain three edits (though the first two are the same) and the third is itself the explanation. So, are you really having that much difficty understanding them? Or is this just more gaslighting? Actually, strike that. No more questions, I think we're done here (at least, I am. This is your talk page, so feel free to have the last word). -
theWOLFchild 17:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Strike that. No more questions" out in one edit: [11]. An even more efficient way of striking one's comments is to take them out before hitting "save". But I guess you really wanted to ask those questions, didn't you? Separately, why did you believe that "Not this again. That's not much of an argument. Not all of us have sat here spending our lives reading old arguments" is a personal attack? To the point of edit-warring over it?
The article Erich Hoepner you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Erich Hoepner 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 Euryalus -- Euryalus ( talk) 03:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Your Arbcom case request includes references to the article on Erich Hoepner, as an example of the alleged issue. As you know I recently did a GA review on that article, in my capacity as a random member of Milhist. Am also in a position to vote on the case request in my capacity as a random member of Arbcom.
I haven't (yet) recused from the case because I don't see this piece of fairly minor content analysis as impinging on the likelihood of a fair hearing. But am keen to get your views either way, as a principal participant in the request as it stands. -- Euryalus ( talk) 03:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Just read your Signpost article, excellent and important work. I've come across issues like this over the years in historiography topics. For a while there were editors scrubbing the early medieval articles of "Barbarian" replacing with "Germans". Or the Turkish nationalists who were adamant they were the direct genetic heirs of the Huns (historians actually believe the Huns were a brand name, like a football team, not a racial tribal division). Or those who believe the Dark Ages (historiography) were actually dark (there were some problems in the period but it was mostly a later invention by Italian Humanists to restore the glory of the Roman Empire). Wikipedia needs more historiography-focused articles (like Dark Ages (historiography)) so these issues can be stated clearly. But it's a specialized field to be sure, and they tend to be honey traps for those who disagree. -- Green C 02:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Only just noticed it so I added a comment on the Bugle talk page. I was surprised at what you have found, even though it's been discussed on the MilHist page often enough. In my furrow obsolete texts aren't as ideologically questionable, just bad scholarship or the obsolete stuff of commercial history (the Schlieffen Plan comes to mind) endlessly repackaged like the Hitler channel. It seems to me that Wiki rules contain a conservative corollary which makes truth a matter of quantity of sources, rather than quality. Is there a nationality correlation with the sources (authors and editors) used to whitewash the Hitler regime? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 19:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The single most difficult task all those working on World War II in Europe and North Africa face is the need to penetrate the fog of distortion and confusion generated by the vast German memoir literature, especially that of the generals like Heinz Guderian and Erich von Manstein. Long the basic staple on which secondary literature was based, closer examination of these works with reference to contemporary evidence has shown the memoirs to be almost invariably inaccurate, distorted and, in some instances, simply fake… Scholars in all countries need to liberate their own minds and their own writings from a preoccupation with an enormous collection of dubious works and from the influence of an even larger mass of secondary works largely based on those memoirs.’ [1]
References
In case you are not watching the page above an editor has brought it back to life. As part of NPP I have reverted to you but don't plan to get further involved in this content dispute (of there is one). Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I first read the articles on Karl Dönitz and Erich Raeder back in 2013, when I first got into Wikipedia. I recall that the articles included orders by one and/or the other issued to the U-boat force advocating Nazi discipline. I can't seem to find those entries now. As you know, the U-boat force has one of the "least Nazi" reputations of the German WWII forces, as does Doenitz, who of course was designated by Hitler as his heir. If these orders can be properly sourced, exposing his loyalty to the regime he served so well would be useful. As for aircraft kills, my recollection from years ago is that all three of the "300 club" scored more than half of their kills against unarmed Soviet transport planes, and Marseille was perhaps the only 100+ pilot with most of his kills against the UK and US. I have not looked up these "facts" in 40+ years, so I could be wrong. RobDuch ( talk) 23:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
You're correct about Marseille, but wrong about the others. The Germans rarely encountered Soviet transports, so virtually all of the kills by the Germans on the Eastern Front were of armed aircraft.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
References
I am going to ask you self-revert this before an AE is filed for breaking consensus required. PackMecEng ( talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#K.e.coffman. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)