Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
... for improving article quality in July! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
... and for August! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
OberRanks and fabricated sources.
Fut.Perf.
☼ 11:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
On 3 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ronald Smelser, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ronald Smelser's 2008 book The Myth of the Eastern Front focused on the myth of the clean Wehrmacht? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ronald Smelser. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Ronald Smelser), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I say yes. Why? Because the story I posted about one George Papadopoulos was summarily deleted, whereas a story by the NYT, also cited on George Papadopoulos’s page at note 18 remains and that story says pretty much the direct opposite of the story I posted. Can we at least agree that at least one of those stories is false? They simply can’t both be true, no? Which means someone is lying. So my question for the editorial board of Wikipedia is this: On what basis have you concluded the older/less current story by the NYT cited at footnote 18 is the truth, whereas more current The Hill article I attempted repeatedly yesterday to post was false? Both pieces offer a perspective on the same exact series of events—and both assert a factual basis for what is written (note the quotations in The Hill piece—-I’m not a media person myself but I think that may be code for “someone no shit said this and we can prove it.” So why the thumbs up to the NYT and thumbs down to the Hill? Could it be the subject of this post? Inquiring minds want to know. Diehlsa ( talk) 23:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I hope this response makes it through—this isn’t the user friendly view for editing I had before. Please accept my apologies in advance for my technology challengedness—I’ve never ventured into this area of Wiki before but it’s been so fascinating, I really will have to do it more often. To answer your question, I would gladly have cited The Hill article on attempt #3, however, someone in their infinite wisdom decided to ban The Hill as a source so I couldn’t attach the same link. Instead I had to find a story that cited The Hill story. That was a nice touch—good to see there are measures and conscious decisions being made/deployed at Wikipedia to ensure balanced viewpoints are presented. So I guess my follow up question to the WIKIPEDIA editorial board (or whatever the people behind the curtain that decide what does and doesn’t pass muster for Wiki publication call themselves) is this: On what basis was The Hill banned whereas the NYT was not? Is there a published policy or criteria that governs how and under what circumstances a media source can be summarily banned? Is such a decision reviewed independently before being implemented? Is the banned organization advised of its banishment? Are there appeal rights? What are the procedures for appeal? Is the banishment “stayed” while the organization still might file a timely appeal, and, if such an appeal is filed, will banishment be stayed until a decision on the merits is reached? What say you Wikipedia? Inquiring (and undecided minds just looking for the facts) want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehlsa ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehlsa ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Your questions are fair enough Cullen328. Regarding the “banning” of The Hill, on my third attempt to post this I was greeted with a pop up window that contained the following statement: “Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia’s blacklist. To save your changes now, you must go back to the blocked link (shown below) and then save. ...”
There is more text in the pop up—I took a picture of it but I of course can’t figure out how to attach it to this thread. The wording of the pop up was very troubling to me. Why? Well, it would be one thing I suppose to flag the particular article for banishment but that isn’t what the pop up said. Note it plainly and unequivocally states the “site” has now been blacklisted. I did find the upfront acknowledgement to an official Wikipedia “blacklist” to be refreshing from a candor perspective—one point for Wiki for transparency! How exactly does a media site get “registered” on this “blacklist” (seriously, A+ for transparency in owning up to exactly what the purpose of that list is—-isn’t censorship grand?). Who has the authority or Wiki site permissions to do that? Can I ban a site (I hope the answer is yes—such an exciting concept to be able to do that...I hope the power doesn’t go to my head)? If I were able to register a “site” on the acknowledged Wikipedia “blacklist” are there any criteria I have to follow or is it basically up to me if a site is ok or banned? Would my decision be reviewed by anyone—or anyones—prior to the blacklisting going into effect? See the pop up, which genuinely startled me as it laid bare some of the darker implications of an “open” forum such as Wiki, raised more questions than it answered—it was a very Alice Through the Looking Glass kind of moment for me truth be told—all on my first attempt to edit an article on Wiki! How lucky am I right?!? (I think I may have to buy a lottery ticket ticket today—what is it, Powerball day? It’s a fact that you won’t win if you don’t play, right?) Some other questions the pop up brought immediately to mind include: What other media sources are on this list? Can I see the total/full list of sites currently blacklisted? Do these sites know they have been blacklisted? How long does a site stay banned—are they automatically released from “jail” after a set period of time—put another way, is official Wiki blacklisting a life sentence without possibility of parole or at some point could a site redeem itself and get back in the good graces of the Wiki community? Who decides if, when and under what circumstances a blacklisting ends? Also, insert the same appeal and procedural questions I asked previously above here. More than happy to share the screen shot photo, if someone would guide my technology challenged self in figuring how to upload it onto this thread. Oops—I have kids to get out the door—weekend sporting events and all. Will return later to address the comment about “opinion” pieces generally being unacceptable on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehlsa ( talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
So here is my comment about the validity of rejecting The Hill piece on the grounds that it is an “opinion” piece. I mean it is plainly labeled by The Hill as such, right? But does the mere fact that the NYT piece cited at note 18 isn’t labeled as such, therefore make it a “fact” piece or somehow more credible or reliable? I think not. Why? Well this is what appears in the current wiki page, presented apparently as a “fact”, since opinions are a no-no.
“On April 26, 2016, at a breakfast meeting at a London hotel, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that he had just learned from high-level Russian officials in Moscow that the Russians had “dirt” on Mrs. Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.”
Based on the Hill piece, this statement is false. So one thing is patently clear—at least one of these stories is a bunch of BS. But which one should you choose? Well, if I had to pick one, I’d pick the Hill article. And the reason has absolutely nothing to do with ANY political perspective I personally may hold. Nope—it all goes to the quantum and value of the evidence and on that point, the Hill article is plainly superior to the NYT piece. Instead of relying on “unnamed” sources for their “facts” like the NYT did, the Hill has EVIDENCE—they have copies of the very emails that Prof Mifsud sent, directly to the FBI. So when the Hill puts something in quotations, they are directly and transparently quoting the authoritative source for whatever is being asserted—they are quoting Prof Mifsud himself. Wouldn’t he be a more credible and reliable source on what he did or did not say to the FBI when they came across the pond to interview him?I would think that would be the case. The factual “pedigree” of the NYT is completely obscured——I mean the implication is this unnamed “source” is some government big Whig that is “in the know” about these things but for all we know, this reporter and his neighbor were shooting the shit about politics at a neighborhood BBQ and the reporter liked what his neighbor said so much, that viola!, the neighbor, who just happens to work for the federal government, is transformed into an “unnamed source”. (We’re EVERYWHERE in/around DC, so it is highly plausible that one of his neighbors is a federal employee.) In some places the NYT does quote someone: John Brennan—the guy that lied, multiple times, under oath...to Congress, and got away with it!! Who does that and gets away with it?!? So Brennan can’t be leaned on as a trusted source of anything! I therefore would submit that the currently “acceptable” NTY article is neither a “fact” piece, nor is it an “opinion” piece—rather it is a “propaganda” piece—but shouldn’t that be counted the least and questioned/verified the most?? I just can’t fathom why the NYT article is accepted by Wiki as gospel while the Hill article is rejected by Wiki out of hand.....unless....unless it’s just someone’s OPINION that the NYT piece is more credible..??... But I thought the rule was opinions are a no-no...? Gosh but now I’m really confused. Could you help me understand why my thinking/logic on why the Hill piece should be adopted over the NYT piece is all wrong? What is it about the NYT piece that makes it “better”? Regardless of that answer/rationale, if the Hill deletion stands, then the NYT piece has got to go as it clearly is inferior to the Hill in terms of “believably.” I will gladly withdraw my objection to deletion of the Hill piece, if citation 18 and all text appearing on the page itself that pertains to citation 18, is likewise deleted.
P.S. Wanted to express my gratitude for this little gem of a note I received from MelanieN out there in wiki land. It really speaks volumes about what Wiki is all about.
“You have added this same information to the article three times. This is to warn you about WP:Edit warring; if you add it a fourth time you could be subject to sanctions. Take it to the article's talk page, and explain why you think the material is properly sourced and should be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)”
I’m taking the resounding silence as agreement that if The Hill article can’t be added, then the NYT article that was citation #18 has got to go as well. So I’ve just deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehlsa ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
You once helped me remove hagiographic material about Léon Degrelle from Wikipedia. I have finally got round to re-writing Walloon Legion and I thought you might be interested in taking a look. I am aware that the current draft is not very elegant, but I do think it is an improvement. Do feel free to hack away at it! All best, — Brigade Piron ( talk) 19:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Saw this over at the milhist page, it is reads an awful lot like the Bugle article and the ARBCOM case..... But not reference to either.... Icewhiz ( talk) 14:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you think we have enough on them to request a CU or file an SPI? For a page that only gets an avg of 4 views a day, I find them turning up suspicious, but the six day delay between the two is odd, esp roundrobinguy would be the master if it was confirmed. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for contributing to
the Rfc at Talk:Naomi Osaka. It may or may not interest you to know that an additional option was added (by me) after you made your contribution(s).
This is not a canvas, just an invitation to have another look at the RfC if you're interested. Regards.
Scolaire (
talk) 15:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffmann, I'm not sure where you live; given your interests, I thought I'd let you know that Christopher Browning, author of Ordinary Men : Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, New York : HarperCollins, 1992, will be in Pittsburgh, PA next week. He's giving a presentation on the new release of Ordinary Men, at Carnegie Mellon University next week. flyer here. auntieruth (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you please specify what does it mean and possibly help to improve the image or its description so it can be preserved? Just putting some acronym in the summary really doesn't help me to understand, what to avoid or do next time. Thanks in advance. -- Honzula ( talk) 05:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |||
Hello, K.e.coffman.
I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. |
Hi K.e.coffman, you would like to ask your advice. You, being the creator of the Waffen-SS in popular culture and Clean Wehrmacht articles as well as well as having edited HIAG extensively strike me as possibly the best to ask. The current Waffen-SS article lacks any part of the role it's veterans played in post-war Germany and it's perception there, other then the HIAG section. I have done a bit of investigation into that matter as I was especially interested in the influence it had in the new German armed forces. The Waffen-SS article is pretty high profile (also not rated a good article at this stage) and I don't feel quite confident in adding a massive section to it without another opinion. Could you please have a read of whats in User:Turismond/sandbox (at your leisure, no rush), and let me know what you think. Regards, Turismond ( talk) 07:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the discussion. As an aside: IBM during World War II, IBM Gets An Ugly History Lesson (Forbes, 2001). There were of course many others - chemical companies, car manufacturers etc. François Robere ( talk) 11:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)(
A message for Ke.coffman: I edited the Panzerlied article by reverting it to the August 2018 version due to the fact that it had been cut down to almost nothing. I did not think I had to include citations on a reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LonePilot ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
In looking at List of civil decorations of Nazi Germany and Political decorations of the Nazi Party, I believe they should be merged. The former into the latter. They are both pretty poor in presentation; being in need of work and more RS citing. What do you think? Kierzek ( talk) 17:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I wonder if you can help. The page on Mike Gooley was converted from a very short article to a redirect on 20:04, 17 June 2017. We were made aware of this when a member of the public got in touch to ask us where the page was. ( I am an employee of Trailfinders which Mike owns) I understand it was taken down on the rationale that Mike doesn't meet the Wikipedia guidelines on notability which is completely understandable given much of the information was out of date, much was missing and the piece was generally lacking citations. Would it be possible for you to re-instate the page so I can update it to the level where I believe it will merit it's own page please. thanks Lee L.d.holden ( talk) 15:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.d.holden ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC) @ L.d.holden: please review the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey there, your attention would be appreciated. I know you've done this before. François Robere ( talk) 15:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
... for improving article quality in July! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
... and for August! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
OberRanks and fabricated sources.
Fut.Perf.
☼ 11:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
On 3 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ronald Smelser, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ronald Smelser's 2008 book The Myth of the Eastern Front focused on the myth of the clean Wehrmacht? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ronald Smelser. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Ronald Smelser), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I say yes. Why? Because the story I posted about one George Papadopoulos was summarily deleted, whereas a story by the NYT, also cited on George Papadopoulos’s page at note 18 remains and that story says pretty much the direct opposite of the story I posted. Can we at least agree that at least one of those stories is false? They simply can’t both be true, no? Which means someone is lying. So my question for the editorial board of Wikipedia is this: On what basis have you concluded the older/less current story by the NYT cited at footnote 18 is the truth, whereas more current The Hill article I attempted repeatedly yesterday to post was false? Both pieces offer a perspective on the same exact series of events—and both assert a factual basis for what is written (note the quotations in The Hill piece—-I’m not a media person myself but I think that may be code for “someone no shit said this and we can prove it.” So why the thumbs up to the NYT and thumbs down to the Hill? Could it be the subject of this post? Inquiring minds want to know. Diehlsa ( talk) 23:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I hope this response makes it through—this isn’t the user friendly view for editing I had before. Please accept my apologies in advance for my technology challengedness—I’ve never ventured into this area of Wiki before but it’s been so fascinating, I really will have to do it more often. To answer your question, I would gladly have cited The Hill article on attempt #3, however, someone in their infinite wisdom decided to ban The Hill as a source so I couldn’t attach the same link. Instead I had to find a story that cited The Hill story. That was a nice touch—good to see there are measures and conscious decisions being made/deployed at Wikipedia to ensure balanced viewpoints are presented. So I guess my follow up question to the WIKIPEDIA editorial board (or whatever the people behind the curtain that decide what does and doesn’t pass muster for Wiki publication call themselves) is this: On what basis was The Hill banned whereas the NYT was not? Is there a published policy or criteria that governs how and under what circumstances a media source can be summarily banned? Is such a decision reviewed independently before being implemented? Is the banned organization advised of its banishment? Are there appeal rights? What are the procedures for appeal? Is the banishment “stayed” while the organization still might file a timely appeal, and, if such an appeal is filed, will banishment be stayed until a decision on the merits is reached? What say you Wikipedia? Inquiring (and undecided minds just looking for the facts) want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehlsa ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehlsa ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Your questions are fair enough Cullen328. Regarding the “banning” of The Hill, on my third attempt to post this I was greeted with a pop up window that contained the following statement: “Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia’s blacklist. To save your changes now, you must go back to the blocked link (shown below) and then save. ...”
There is more text in the pop up—I took a picture of it but I of course can’t figure out how to attach it to this thread. The wording of the pop up was very troubling to me. Why? Well, it would be one thing I suppose to flag the particular article for banishment but that isn’t what the pop up said. Note it plainly and unequivocally states the “site” has now been blacklisted. I did find the upfront acknowledgement to an official Wikipedia “blacklist” to be refreshing from a candor perspective—one point for Wiki for transparency! How exactly does a media site get “registered” on this “blacklist” (seriously, A+ for transparency in owning up to exactly what the purpose of that list is—-isn’t censorship grand?). Who has the authority or Wiki site permissions to do that? Can I ban a site (I hope the answer is yes—such an exciting concept to be able to do that...I hope the power doesn’t go to my head)? If I were able to register a “site” on the acknowledged Wikipedia “blacklist” are there any criteria I have to follow or is it basically up to me if a site is ok or banned? Would my decision be reviewed by anyone—or anyones—prior to the blacklisting going into effect? See the pop up, which genuinely startled me as it laid bare some of the darker implications of an “open” forum such as Wiki, raised more questions than it answered—it was a very Alice Through the Looking Glass kind of moment for me truth be told—all on my first attempt to edit an article on Wiki! How lucky am I right?!? (I think I may have to buy a lottery ticket ticket today—what is it, Powerball day? It’s a fact that you won’t win if you don’t play, right?) Some other questions the pop up brought immediately to mind include: What other media sources are on this list? Can I see the total/full list of sites currently blacklisted? Do these sites know they have been blacklisted? How long does a site stay banned—are they automatically released from “jail” after a set period of time—put another way, is official Wiki blacklisting a life sentence without possibility of parole or at some point could a site redeem itself and get back in the good graces of the Wiki community? Who decides if, when and under what circumstances a blacklisting ends? Also, insert the same appeal and procedural questions I asked previously above here. More than happy to share the screen shot photo, if someone would guide my technology challenged self in figuring how to upload it onto this thread. Oops—I have kids to get out the door—weekend sporting events and all. Will return later to address the comment about “opinion” pieces generally being unacceptable on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehlsa ( talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
So here is my comment about the validity of rejecting The Hill piece on the grounds that it is an “opinion” piece. I mean it is plainly labeled by The Hill as such, right? But does the mere fact that the NYT piece cited at note 18 isn’t labeled as such, therefore make it a “fact” piece or somehow more credible or reliable? I think not. Why? Well this is what appears in the current wiki page, presented apparently as a “fact”, since opinions are a no-no.
“On April 26, 2016, at a breakfast meeting at a London hotel, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that he had just learned from high-level Russian officials in Moscow that the Russians had “dirt” on Mrs. Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.”
Based on the Hill piece, this statement is false. So one thing is patently clear—at least one of these stories is a bunch of BS. But which one should you choose? Well, if I had to pick one, I’d pick the Hill article. And the reason has absolutely nothing to do with ANY political perspective I personally may hold. Nope—it all goes to the quantum and value of the evidence and on that point, the Hill article is plainly superior to the NYT piece. Instead of relying on “unnamed” sources for their “facts” like the NYT did, the Hill has EVIDENCE—they have copies of the very emails that Prof Mifsud sent, directly to the FBI. So when the Hill puts something in quotations, they are directly and transparently quoting the authoritative source for whatever is being asserted—they are quoting Prof Mifsud himself. Wouldn’t he be a more credible and reliable source on what he did or did not say to the FBI when they came across the pond to interview him?I would think that would be the case. The factual “pedigree” of the NYT is completely obscured——I mean the implication is this unnamed “source” is some government big Whig that is “in the know” about these things but for all we know, this reporter and his neighbor were shooting the shit about politics at a neighborhood BBQ and the reporter liked what his neighbor said so much, that viola!, the neighbor, who just happens to work for the federal government, is transformed into an “unnamed source”. (We’re EVERYWHERE in/around DC, so it is highly plausible that one of his neighbors is a federal employee.) In some places the NYT does quote someone: John Brennan—the guy that lied, multiple times, under oath...to Congress, and got away with it!! Who does that and gets away with it?!? So Brennan can’t be leaned on as a trusted source of anything! I therefore would submit that the currently “acceptable” NTY article is neither a “fact” piece, nor is it an “opinion” piece—rather it is a “propaganda” piece—but shouldn’t that be counted the least and questioned/verified the most?? I just can’t fathom why the NYT article is accepted by Wiki as gospel while the Hill article is rejected by Wiki out of hand.....unless....unless it’s just someone’s OPINION that the NYT piece is more credible..??... But I thought the rule was opinions are a no-no...? Gosh but now I’m really confused. Could you help me understand why my thinking/logic on why the Hill piece should be adopted over the NYT piece is all wrong? What is it about the NYT piece that makes it “better”? Regardless of that answer/rationale, if the Hill deletion stands, then the NYT piece has got to go as it clearly is inferior to the Hill in terms of “believably.” I will gladly withdraw my objection to deletion of the Hill piece, if citation 18 and all text appearing on the page itself that pertains to citation 18, is likewise deleted.
P.S. Wanted to express my gratitude for this little gem of a note I received from MelanieN out there in wiki land. It really speaks volumes about what Wiki is all about.
“You have added this same information to the article three times. This is to warn you about WP:Edit warring; if you add it a fourth time you could be subject to sanctions. Take it to the article's talk page, and explain why you think the material is properly sourced and should be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)”
I’m taking the resounding silence as agreement that if The Hill article can’t be added, then the NYT article that was citation #18 has got to go as well. So I’ve just deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehlsa ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
You once helped me remove hagiographic material about Léon Degrelle from Wikipedia. I have finally got round to re-writing Walloon Legion and I thought you might be interested in taking a look. I am aware that the current draft is not very elegant, but I do think it is an improvement. Do feel free to hack away at it! All best, — Brigade Piron ( talk) 19:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Saw this over at the milhist page, it is reads an awful lot like the Bugle article and the ARBCOM case..... But not reference to either.... Icewhiz ( talk) 14:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you think we have enough on them to request a CU or file an SPI? For a page that only gets an avg of 4 views a day, I find them turning up suspicious, but the six day delay between the two is odd, esp roundrobinguy would be the master if it was confirmed. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for contributing to
the Rfc at Talk:Naomi Osaka. It may or may not interest you to know that an additional option was added (by me) after you made your contribution(s).
This is not a canvas, just an invitation to have another look at the RfC if you're interested. Regards.
Scolaire (
talk) 15:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffmann, I'm not sure where you live; given your interests, I thought I'd let you know that Christopher Browning, author of Ordinary Men : Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, New York : HarperCollins, 1992, will be in Pittsburgh, PA next week. He's giving a presentation on the new release of Ordinary Men, at Carnegie Mellon University next week. flyer here. auntieruth (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you please specify what does it mean and possibly help to improve the image or its description so it can be preserved? Just putting some acronym in the summary really doesn't help me to understand, what to avoid or do next time. Thanks in advance. -- Honzula ( talk) 05:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |||
Hello, K.e.coffman.
I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. |
Hi K.e.coffman, you would like to ask your advice. You, being the creator of the Waffen-SS in popular culture and Clean Wehrmacht articles as well as well as having edited HIAG extensively strike me as possibly the best to ask. The current Waffen-SS article lacks any part of the role it's veterans played in post-war Germany and it's perception there, other then the HIAG section. I have done a bit of investigation into that matter as I was especially interested in the influence it had in the new German armed forces. The Waffen-SS article is pretty high profile (also not rated a good article at this stage) and I don't feel quite confident in adding a massive section to it without another opinion. Could you please have a read of whats in User:Turismond/sandbox (at your leisure, no rush), and let me know what you think. Regards, Turismond ( talk) 07:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the discussion. As an aside: IBM during World War II, IBM Gets An Ugly History Lesson (Forbes, 2001). There were of course many others - chemical companies, car manufacturers etc. François Robere ( talk) 11:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)(
A message for Ke.coffman: I edited the Panzerlied article by reverting it to the August 2018 version due to the fact that it had been cut down to almost nothing. I did not think I had to include citations on a reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LonePilot ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
In looking at List of civil decorations of Nazi Germany and Political decorations of the Nazi Party, I believe they should be merged. The former into the latter. They are both pretty poor in presentation; being in need of work and more RS citing. What do you think? Kierzek ( talk) 17:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I wonder if you can help. The page on Mike Gooley was converted from a very short article to a redirect on 20:04, 17 June 2017. We were made aware of this when a member of the public got in touch to ask us where the page was. ( I am an employee of Trailfinders which Mike owns) I understand it was taken down on the rationale that Mike doesn't meet the Wikipedia guidelines on notability which is completely understandable given much of the information was out of date, much was missing and the piece was generally lacking citations. Would it be possible for you to re-instate the page so I can update it to the level where I believe it will merit it's own page please. thanks Lee L.d.holden ( talk) 15:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.d.holden ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC) @ L.d.holden: please review the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey there, your attention would be appreciated. I know you've done this before. François Robere ( talk) 15:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)