Jump to content

User talk:K.e.coffman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Штрих (talk | contribs) at 11:15, 31 January 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Draft:FxPro

Hi. I'd like to request a re-review since the publications cited in this article. Штрих (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your project help last year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thank you & same to you! K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January

January
Lanzarote
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for improving articles! Did you know that Precious began 7 years ago? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bespoke Post

Hi, although I know following the standards outlined in the Notability section on Wikipedia doesn't guarantee submission, I'd like to request a re-review since the publications cited in this article do meet the notability criteria. Citations are from major news outlets and trade magazines - and talk in length about the company (they are not small spots).

If you still feel differently, I ask for advice on where to look for sources.GregBrianData (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); the article does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:ORGIND. Please also see WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID; note that paid editing without disclosure is not allowed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GregBrianData: adding ping. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: - are you requesting then that I remove sources cited that are insignifiacnt...that I add new, more significant citation...or both? GregBrianData (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @GregBrianData: Unfortunately, if the subject is not notable, there's nothing but waiting until/if it gains more independent coverage. See Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 16:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: - I guess I'm more so inquiring, then, as to which citations I currently use are notable? I found articles from CBSNews, TechCrunch, Fortune, and WWD. Where do they fall on the spectrum of notability? This article, for example, is a similar company that cites similar sources. Any clarity or resolution you can offer here would be greatly appreciated. GregBrianData (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GregBrianData: Your editing gives the impression of a financial stake in the the subject that you wrote about. Do you have and WP:PAID relationship here, and / or any other WP:COI? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: - Can you elaborate on what gives you that impression? I've been seeing their ads on Facebook virtually every week and was looking to read more about them. I noticed they had coverage, but no Wiki page. Did you see my previous message re "any clarity or resolution you can offer here would be greatly appreciated." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.225.241.238 (talk • contribs)
Please see the advice you've been given here: Review of submission by 104.225.241.238. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering

What's wrong with songs by Sabaton? (I mean, as songs, not as serious history).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Nothing's wrong with their music per se. The reason I mentioned them (I assume you're referring to this section) was due to a certain war romanticism that their songs / videos display. They literally have a song about the Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler incident; the video can be viewed here: No Bullets Fly. Turn this Wikipedia article into a video, and you'd get Sabaton's.
Maybe 1% of WW2 was about "aces"; "chivalry", the "unique fraternity of fliers", and some such. The problem, as I see it, is when Wikipedia focuses on such romantic subject matter to the exclusion of all else. Heavy metal ballads are fine, but this is an encyclopedia. I could write reams about this subject, but if you are interested, I really recommend The Myth of the Eastern Front. It's like a version of my user page but written by two academics and ten years prior :). --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hartmann

The current situation on the Hartmann article requires other editors to get involved. The power to delist the article does not rest with the whim of one person. We need opinions on the current state of the arricle. The excuses for removing this from .CA get weaker and weaker. Dapi89 (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Closure_of_GA_Review_(and_removal_of_GA_Status)_by_nominator_of_article_for_review. I have queried whether, as nominator, you are sufficiently uninvolved to close the discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigel Ish: if Talk:Erich Hartmann/GA1 were a GA review, it would be a fail. Please also see follow-on discussion at Dapi89's Talk page and Buidhe's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Osprey

Hi K.e.coffman. I just noticed your edit summary for Kurt Meyer. Just a heads up that Osprey are upping their game. I am part way through this and you couldn't invent a more reliable military historian than Dennis Showalter. In the introduction he says that reading Osprey sparked his youthful interest in history and that as a boy he dreamt of being published by them. And the book is not what one might expect from Osprey - a solid and serious treatment. I am aware that you tend to treat sources on a case by case basis anyway, so apologies if this is redundant information. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Sure, Osprey's books should be judged on a case-by-case basis. In Meyer's case, the statement also struck me as undue and weasel'y:
During the course of the war, Meyer came to be regarded as a capable military commander[1]...

References

  1. ^ Hart 2016, p. 14.
"Regarded" by whom? Men under Meyer's command? The author? All historians? Etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I carefully phrased my comment so as not to imply, I thought, that I was questioning that particular edit. I shall be more explicit next time. The phrase jarred a bit when I copy edited, but I don't see it as a copy editor's role to make judgements on sourced material. I am more than happy that it has gone. It was, as I said above, the edit summary that caught my eye: "this claim needs a stronger source that a book from Osprey". I assumed that what you really meant was something like '... than this particular book'. But as I have only today been reading an Osprey book which I feel would pass a RS test I thought it might be helpful to flag that up just in case you meant what you had written literally. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Agreed. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2012-13 Mascom Top 8 Cup

Hi, I noticed you recently rejected Draft:2012-13_Mascom_Top_8_Cup at AfC. The page needs some work, but I just accepted the 2011-12 Mascom Top 8 Cup and was going to add some references and accept this article. Do you know how to revert from the hard stop on the draft page? It is the most lucrative domestic football tournament in Botswana and receives enough coverage to pass WP:SPORTSEVENT/WP:NSEASONS. SportingFlyer T·C 06:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I reverted the rejection, so it's now back to a draft awaiting review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I'll make sure it gets cleaned up properly. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Hartmann

I have raised a question on talk page about one of the authors used in this article. A short glance at the article seems to indicate some very dubious claims sourced to weak or POV sources. Just a quick search on one example immediately came up with statement about "improving facts" and mixing tall stories with actual events.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the subject of Hartmann, when you delist a GA, can you please go to Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare, remove the article and amend the tally? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: thank you; will do. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cora Emmanuel

Explain to me how she “doesn’t” meet NMODEL or have reliable sources when her entire career was profiled by Vogue Paris, and was inverviewed by American Vogue, Interview Magazine, and The Cut about her career who pointed out her work, while independent sources verified what they said? Is Vogue not a reliable source for models all of a sudden? 🤔 Is a Chanel campaign not notable anymore? Make it make sense. Trillfendi (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: I believe you are referring to https://www.vogue.com/article/model-wall-cora-emmanuel -- this is an interview and not sufficient for establishing notability. The other sources are primary and / or passing mentions. you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk; please link this discussion if you do. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s ironic you say that; earlier in the month there was a volatile debate over model Kätlin Aas’s proposed deletion, who had absolutely no significant coverage and really 1 job that could count as notability for a model, but people dug 6ft for random “model wall” interviews they desperately claimed contributed to notability and basically depicted me as a bitter hag for trying to point out the hypocrisy of it and the fact that it doesn’t work like that. Nothing they produced went beyond a paragraph or even one sentence. They claimed the bare minimum was enough. So that proved to me the goal posts are moved for who they want to move it for. Basically, people who follow fashion know Emmanuel is a notable model. I even see her ads at my local train station. But her sources are almost in the same circumstance as Aas right now, except Emmanuel has much more significant coverage out there. Anyway, thanks for your input. Trillfendi (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trillfendi: you are welcome to resubmit and / or ask for a second opinion at the helpdesk: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curious if you've heard of...

this? GABgab 16:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: I've not heard about the book, but obviously I've heard of the subject. Paul Hanebrink looks like a well-qualified author. Is this the feedback you were looking for, or was it something else? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to make a recommendation - I was very pleased to see a full-length study on this subject. GABgab 16:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralizationsAreBad: Thank you. Yes, that's an insiduous myth; I have a few Wiki examples of the "Jew-Bolshevik-Partisan" construct at User:K.e.coffman#"Ah, partisanen!", including a hoax caption. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) Interesting, using te Marx's quote as the title. Does it have special meaning in the context, or is the author using it—say—ironically, or perhaps tongue-in-cheek? Jst out of curiousity. ——SerialNumber54129 17:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Interesting, I did not know that it was a quote from Marx. I found the following: "When Karl Marx famously proclaimed in 1848 that “a specter is haunting Europe,” he immediately gave it a name—the specter of communism. Today a specter is again haunting Europe, but (as perhaps befits a spectral presence) it does not have so clear an identity." Source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is an interesting connection comparison. While you're here—What about an A-class review next...?! It seems odd that it's ncessary, but. ——SerialNumber54129 13:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: I agree; the process seems overly regimented. Especially when the MILHIST A-class requirements state: "The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality." (Source: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review). If the article fails a GAR, it's surely not close to featured article quality. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Regimented"...very apt  :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Please also see WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID"

Please refrain adding unfounded insinuations to your comments like you added at Draft:Momentus_X1 — Sbsail talk 04:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbsail: I apologise for my rejection message having come across the wrong way. The subject is still not notable though. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm doing this right...Charlotte Stokely

Sorry, never done this before but I THINK you're the person who deleted porn actress Charlotte Stokely's page? Anyway I know "significant awards" is part of the criteria? She just won AVN Girl-Girl Performer of the Year tonight, and this year also won XBIZ Girl-Girl Performer of the Year and was a Penthouse Pet of the Year this year. Does that make her more eligible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.32.133 (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Other recent awards for Charlotte Stokely: 2019 Adult Entertainment News Girl-Girl Performer of the Year, 2018 XRCO Girl-Girl Performer of the Year, 2018 NightMoves Girl-Girl Performer of the Year Fan Voting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.32.133 (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:LearnUpon

Hi; can you lay out for me why the articles for other LMS (DoceboLMS in particular) are considered notable enough to remain when my article about LearnUpon has been removed? Neither the products nor the companies are very different.

Lmsmaster (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmsmaster: By clicking on the red link LearnUpon, you can see that the page has been deleted from Wikipedia multiple times, including via a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearnUpon. Please also see the advice you've been given at the helpdesk: Review of submission byLmsmaster. Per WP:PAID, you need to comply with the disclosure requirements, if applicable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Click Aviation Network

Hi, thank you for your feedback on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Click_Aviation_Network. The initial article was deleted, so I've recreated another article keeping in mind of the earlier concerns. and looking forward to your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmukisa (talk • contribs) 09:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianmukisa: the page does not meet WP:CORP; significant WP:RS coverage not found. It's a non-viable draft, unfortunately. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.e.coffman&oldid=881090636"