Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HIAG/archive1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:06, 20 May 2018

HIAG

Featured article candidates/HIAG/archive1

Nominator(s): K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a Waffen-SS lobby group in post-war Germany. The article passed GA about two years ago and has been stable since. I believe that the article meets FA requirements for scope, sources, etc. It addresses a key group among German World War II veterans' organisations. HIAG is notable for the legacy of its propaganda campaigns, with some off-shoots and publications possibly still existing today. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Kurt_Meyer_and_Paul_Hausser_at_a_HIAG_convention.jpg: the "historic images" tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just whatever is pictured, is historic - eg. the Tank Man photo. This needs a different tag and a better FUR

Provided. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Der_Freiwillige_1959_cover.jpg needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Provided. --K.e.coffman (talk)

Source review - spotchecks not done

Stein title doesn't match between Notes and Bibliography

I'm not sure I understand this comment. There are both Stein and Steiner used as sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fn6: publication title should be italicized

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page for FN54? FN27? FN75?

Some of that is Ward, "A Global History of Execution and the Criminal Corpse". I was using GBooks preview which unfortunately does not provide page numbers, i.e. here. Can I provide URLs instead? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page formatting needs correcting on FN77, 81, 108, 109

I provided a pointer to the URL. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether publication titles are or are not abbreviated in footnotes, but in the full ref they should be written out

I'm not sure I understand this comment. Can you give me an example? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check alphabetization of Bibliography

I'm not seeing anything out of order. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Access dates and archive dates should have the same formatting

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles should include full date and, where available, author name or agency

Provided where available. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No citations to Wildermuth. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed comments as noted above. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Factotem

My responses inline in italics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link to kuecprd.ku.edu for Citino's The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943 could not be reached at the time I checked it.

Removed as unneeded. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link provided to uncpress for Diehl's Thanks of the Fatherland: German Veterans After the Second World War gives a different ISBN (978-0-8078-5730-4) than the ISBN link that you provide (978-0-8078-2077-3). Checking that first ISBN on Gbooks shows the 360-page 2009 edition, while your ISBN is for the 345-page 1993 edition. The difference in pagination may affect the page numbering in your refs.

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link provided to www.dacapopress.com for Parker's Hitler's Warrior: The Life and Wars of SS Colonel Jochen Peiper gives me a page not found error.

Removed as unneeded. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pontolillo's Murderous Elite: The Waffen-SS and Its Record of Atrocities appears to have been published in 2009, rather than 2010 as stated in the bibliography.

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Lucas Schneider is also credited as a co-author for Wette's The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality.

Schneider appears to be the translator. Compare: [1]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bibliographic details you provide for Wienand's Returning Memories: Former Prisoners of War in Divided and Reunited Germany are confusing. According to the Worldcat list of editions, Rochester, N.Y., is the location of Camden House publishers, whilst Boydell & Brewer appear to be located in Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK. There's also an inconsistency in pagination, with the JSTOR link showing 366 pages (and the different ISBN 9781782045304), the Camden House edition (which corresponds to the ISBN number you provide) indicating 346, and the Boydell & Brewer edition (which has the different ISBN 9781782045304 - same as the JSTOR edition, prob refers to the e-book) indicating 364.

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the translation of Wilking's "Wie ein Mann ein Mann wird" correct? Google translates it as "How a man becomes a man". Whilst Google translate is more often guilty of butchering a language than translating it, I do believe that the German verb Werden in this context means "to become".

Removed; it may have been my translation. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the above rather minor issues, the presentation of sources seem OK to me.

Spotchecks

Ref #3 (Smelser & Davies pp. 72-73). Page numbering error? These two pages appear, from the Gbooks preview, to discuss only Halder, and nowhere can I find anything to support the statements in the second paragraph of the "Post-World War II context section" cited to them. Should the page numbering be 73-74 (Section titled in the book as "Networking with the Bundeswehr"), which do generally support the statments? There is, however, one troubling exception relating to the third bullet point. I'm not sure where the quote in the statement: that "measures to transform both domestic and foreign public opinion" be taken with regard to the German military comes from. The source, p. 74, actually reads "Measures to change the public attitude toward military service would have to be implemented" (my emphasis). There is no mention there of "domestic and foreign" public opinion. More importantly, military service and German military are two very different things. Given that the Himmerod memorandum relates to the rearmament of West Germany, it's quite conceivable that this statement is referring to the future military, and not the past, don't you think?

Fixed page numbers and text; not sure where I got that last point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #42 (Frankfurter Allgemeine) OK except, as far as I understand the German, the article specifies that Simon was imprisoned for war crimes perpetrated against "Italian civilians", without specifying the Marzabotto massacre. The WP article on that massacre reports the conviction of Simon as one of the perpetrators, but the assertion is unsourced. FAZ also states that Simon was tried thrice (rather than twice as written in the article) after his release. This is an issue of precision, and the fundamental point being made is supported by the source.

The death penalty for the massacre is mentioned here: London Cage: The Secret History of Britain's World War II Interrogation Centre, "Max Simon did not stand trial for the Ardeatine caves massacre, but did receive the death penalty from a British military court for the Marzabotto massacre in Italy in autumn ...". --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #70 (SPD Anfrage). Given that this is a 39-page document, you could usefully refine the ref to "Chapter 3, Section 4". Also, the source states that Munin-Verlag was established by "Soldaten der ehemaligen Waffen-SS" (soldiers of the former Waffen-SS). It does not state whether they were members of HIAG.

Added "Chapter 3, Section 4". The sources used elsewhere in the article state that Munin-Verlag was established by HIAG. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #74 (Worldcat listing). Is this not WP:OR? Also, taking one example from the names listed, how do we know that the Rudolf Lehmann listed as published by Munin Verlag is the same person as Rudolf Lehmann (SS officer)?

This seems okay to me, as I'm using a primary source for non-controversial statement. Rudolf Lehmann was a Munin-Verlag author, for example. I can remove, if it's a sticking point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any WP:PRIMARY issues with the use of the listing to say that this publisher published these authors, but strictly speaking, linking those authors names introduces an element of interpretation on your part. We are not able to verify from the primary source that those authors are the same as those you link to. I've also just noticed that the first sentence constrains the time-scale up to 1992, but Patrick Agte's works were published after then. The fundamental point that Munin published works by former Waffen-SS still stands, so I'm not sure that linking listed individuals adds any value that would warrant skirting around the boundaries of WP:OR in an article that aspires to showcase WP's best work. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I removed the list. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #86 (Heberer 2008 p. 235). Whilst the source supports the quote, I can see nothing in it to support the statements that the "...legal rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS was out of HIAG's reach" or that "...attitudes were beginning to change...".

Fixed. My citation was wrong; should have been {{sfn|Werther|Hurd|2014|p=330–331}} for the para. The "out of reach" was in Large. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was the only ref sourced to Heberer, so there's no need now to include that publication in the Bibliography. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #88. Werther & Hurd's work is a 33-page document. Is there a reason why you do not supply a page number for this ref?

Provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided a page number for W&H in ref #87, but ref #88, at the end of the second para in the section "Transition into right-wing extremism", is still without a page number. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the missing pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #103 (Smelser & Davies pp. 159-161). I'm curious about the page range, given that all of the statement can be cited to p. 159. Also, the source states that Yerger was a prolific writer, which is not the same as popular. This is an issue of precision, and the fundamental point being made is supported by the source.

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #107 (Smelser & Davies p. 187). Where on that page is there support for the statement that "...revisionist-inspired messages and visuals found their way into wargames, Internet chatrooms and forums..."?

I see this in Smelser & Davies, p. 187: "Romancers naturally saw wargames as an opportunity to refight the battles of the Russo-German war with distinctly different outcomes..." and "By 1990, the Internet transformed and enlarged the romancer communities. (...) Web sites, chat rooms, various fora..." So I think it takes care of "revisionist-inspired messages" and "wargames, Internet chatrooms and forums", no? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with this is that romanticising war and romanticising the activities of the Waffen-SS are, I think, not necessarily the same thing, and I can't find anything in my (limited preview access) reading of Smelser & Davies that explicitly states, when they talk of "Romancers", that they are referring specifically to the latter. I can see, in a snippet view, that on p. 201 they state "...veterans eagerly joined romancer chat groups, giving members access to men who served and fought in what romancers perceived as the heroic and courageous Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS". That tends to support the statement more than anything I read on p. 187. Is it possible to define what Smelser & Davies mean by the term "Romancers"? It appears to be their own term and not something I can find repeated more widely, based on my googling for it. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've found a preview of the introduction where Smelser & Davies explain, on p. 5, what they mean by the term "romancers", and explicitly link it to a sub-culture that has "embraced the message of the gurus" (which is the revisionist part of the equation here) and identifies "with the values of courage, honor, and self-sacrifice they see in the German soldier of World War Two". You do explain ..."romancers" — that is those who romanticise the German war effort at the end of the first sentence, but that is cited to p. 187, which does not support that definition. At the minimum, I would suggest adding p. 5 to that ref. Personally, I think you could probably do a better job of explaining what they mean by "romancers" in the article; it needs maybe only a sentence. That's more a content issue than a source issue though. Factotem (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Factotem (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few items remain. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed updates as per this section. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmovogel_66

Comments inline in italics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the arrival of the Cold War Better, I think, to say "the beginning"

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the same year (1951), some former career officers of the Wehrmacht were granted war pensions under the Basic Law. Unlike the Wehrmacht, the SS had been deemed a criminal organisation at the Nuremberg trials and could thus act as an "alibi of a nation" (as Gerald Reitlinger's 1956 book of that title suggested). The SS was the entity onto which all crimes of the Nazi regime were conveniently shifted. Consequently, Waffen-SS career personnel were not covered under the 1951 law. Awkward

This seems fine to me. Is there anything, in particular, that seems awkward to you?. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 1949, the political climate was changing and the ban on forming veterans' associations had been lifted. Encouraged by the shifting tone of the World War II discourse, and the courting of the Wehrmacht veterans by the West German government and political parties, former Waffen-SS members came forward to campaign for their rights. Should move this to the 2nd paragraph so chronology is preserved and the text flows better.

I change to "Since 1949..." and kept where it was since the former Waffen-SS members came forward in 1951. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

local so-called support groups commas surrounding "so-called support"

Took out "so-called support", as this did not appear to be necessary and reads better without. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

were officers, most often of junior grades awkward

Seems fine. They were officers of junior grades, so that's what this is trying to convey. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of 1977, Wilhelm Bittrich served as the chairman;[16] as of 1976 Hubert Meyer acted as the federal spokesperson. Awkward. Just say that they held those positions in those years.

I don't know the exact timeframes; sources are sporadic. This is true to sources, so I prefer to keep it this way. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the publication of its first periodical in late 1951 Provide title

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waffen-SS membership, surviving and fallen Awkward. Perhaps "living and dead"?

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The organisation also asserted that the Waffen-SS was merely "the fourth arm of the Wehrmacht"; these claims were even "more dubious", explains Large. Awkward

What seems awkward about it?. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kameraden-Suchdienst wouldn't a better translation be "lost comrade/soldier search" to be pretty literal or "tracing service"?

I standardised on "Tracing service meetings" as this is what Large was using. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the historian Jonathan Petropoulos comma at the end

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

alone during the Pripyat swamps punitive operation better retitled "anti-partisan operation", IMO. Punitive reads oddly in this context

They were mostly murdering defenceless civilians (Jewish men, women and children), so calling it an "anti-partisan operation" would be inaccurate. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murderous rampage would probably be the most accurate characterization, but that might be viewed as a trifle pointy. Punitive implies punishment, or at least retaliation, which isn't what they were doing, either. On the Eastern Front, the Germans called just about anybody that they took a dislike to a "partisan", whether or not they were armed or not, etc., so I'm perfectly comfortable calling it an anti-partisan operation provided that their exceedingly liberal definition of partisan is explained.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the underlying article is called; so I would prefer to stick to that for consistency. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that could "honour traitors" but would vilify its soldiers missing comma

Comma not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Memoirs, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented various suggestions, as noted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completed updates as per this section. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments

I've also rephrased a few things in the article.

The two links to Munin Verlag don't make any sense to me. That is just a redirect to a section in this aricle.

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The organisation drifted into right-wing extremism in its later history" drift doesn't quite seem like right word to me, when, as the article explains, HIAG had always engaged in glorification of Nazism.

The point that the sources were making that, in its early history, HIAG was less overtly open about its Nazi roots. Once their aims of rehabilitation have largely failed, they became more open about it. How about "The organisation drifted into open right-wing extremism..."? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added "open" to qualify the statement. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Potsdam Conference held by the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States from 17 July to 2 August 1945 determined the occupation policies that Allied-occupied Germany was to face" "Allied-occupied" seems superfluous, since only an occupied country can face occupation policies. Besides, all of Germany was occupied (well, except for the parts that were annexed, but those parts weren't then part of Germany any more).

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but I thought all WWII veterans in the Wehrmacht, including conscripts, received pensions and not just career soldiers?

Conscripts are not entitled to pensions. Once they are demobilised, they just go back to their civilian careers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In response, Hausser wrote an open letter to the Bundestag" maybe mention that the Bundestag is West Germany's parliament?

Added. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph starting with "The historian David C. Lange wrote that..." seems a little strange to me. It feel like it's quite common for an organization to claim to represent a group of people, not all of whom are members of that organization, like the AARP claim to act in the interest of all elderly people in the US, even though not all are members. I also don't quite understand how this indicates a contradiction between HIAG's bylaws and what it actually did.
Reading "The organisation also asserted that the Waffen-SS was merely "the fourth arm of the Wehrmacht"" I was curious what the first three arms were.

Large did make a point that HIAG inflated its membership rosters to make itself appear more important in the context of the West German rearmament. The three branches were the Navy, the Army, and the Airforce. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"as described in a 1951 issue of Wiking-Ruf ("Viking Call"), HIAG's first publication" I don't think that you need to mention that this is HIAG's first publication, since this is already mentioned in the previous section.

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading "Along with other veterans' organisations...", I was a little curious how the West German government depended on veterans' organizations' cooperation in rearmament.

The German society was in general not very inclined to support a new military; they were war-weary. So the W. German policians felt it was important to get an endorsement from the veteran's orgs. Also, many sr officers were recruited from the former personnel of the Wehrmacht. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having "Fritz Erler (politician)" in the text seems a little awkward. Maybe the template being used doesn't support piped links, but then I'd do away with the template.

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Normally on Wikipedia song titles aren't translated, or their translation is only given in parentheses. The article only uses the English title of This Is the Guard that Adolf Hitler Loves. This is a little complicated, since this is what the Spiegel article used as a source does. I researched this a little and I believe the German title of the song is "Wir sind die schwarze Garde, die Adolf Hitler liebt", which is actually "We are the Black Guard that Adolf Hitler Loves".

I think I prefer to keep it in English for the benefit of the reader, and since that's what the source had. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Large, who studied HIAG extensively, stated in 1987 that HIAG's anti-democratic and anti-Semitic public statements were..." You don't actually give any examples of HIAG's anti-democratic and anti-Semitic public statements.

I think I may have made a mistake; I believe he was using their internal memoranda, rather than "public" statements. I took it out. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You call the Spiegel article an "investigative article", but the way I understand it, it is only reporting on the study by Wilke.

Removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the [Allied] battle was directed not only the authoritarian regime of the Third Reich" Is there an "against" missing after "directed" or after "only"?

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"that the one beaten" Shouldn't that be "ones"? I'm hesitant to change it since it's a quote.

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Munin Verlag titles did not go through the rigorous fact-checking processes common in traditional historical literature" There is a lot of historical literature that is barely fact-checked.

Changed to "peer-reviewed". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"HIAG worked with historian Ernst Klink of the Military History Research Office (MGFA) in Freiburg to screen materials donated to the German Federal Military Archive (de) for any information that may have implicated units and personnel in questionable activity" Does that mean that they were working to keep those materials out of the archive? Or why were they looking for it?

My understanding is that before the materials were donated, Klink would help review them to remove anything that would be potentially incriminating. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"He argues that the unit histories, like other HIAG publications, focused on the positive, "heroic" side of National Socialism" What positive side of Nationalism Socialism?

Good one :-). Changed to "positive". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Perceived by the West German government to be a Nazi organisation, HIAG was disbanded at the federal level in 1992" By whom? Were they banned by the government?

Yes, they were banned. I've changed to say that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might run into objections concerning the reliability of Antifa-Infoblatt, since it produced by antifa activists, not by experts, although I don't really doubt that it's well-researched. Just two little issues with how the source is used: "Der Freiwillige was still being published in the 2000s" is rather vague and suggests more than a source published in 2001 can back up. "At some point, Der Freiwillige and the Munin Verlag publishing business had been taken over by Patrick Agte, a right-wing author and publisher." The source is much more precise than "at some point". Agte took over Der Freiwillige in 2000 and Munir Verlag on January 1, 2001.

I expect that Antifa-Infoblatt would be considered RS in this context, similar to Southern Poverty Law Center for U.S. based far-right and extremist group. I provided the dates to be more specific. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing the sources into journals and periodicals doesn't make sense to me, since journals are periodicals. Maybe "academic journals"?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I addressed all the points in this section. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment

Nikkimaria, Carabinieri, Factotem, Sturmvogel 66: I believe I addressed the items brought up. Please let me know if anything is outstanding. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 161: / Line 161: @@
 *I believe I addressed all the points in this section. [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
+====Nom's comment====
 *{{U|Nikkimaria}}, {{U|Carabinieri}}, {{U|Factotem}}, {{U|Sturmvogel 66}}: I believe I addressed the items brought up. Please let me know if anything is outstanding. [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)