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 DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk | contribs) at 00:41, 30 March 2019 (→Edit Warring: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deportation of the Kalmyks

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Deportation of the Kalmyks has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still interested in a GA review of the article? The copy edit is done.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@3E1I5S8B9RF7: thank you for the reminder; I've initiated the review process. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bagration

Saw this on your userpage. While generally the Polish underground was opposed to Nazi Germany, in the narrow circumstances of (modern day) Belarus (particularly Nowogródek) and Lithuania - from the end of 1943 and particularly in 1944 - some Polish units were allied and supplied by Nazi Germany (Pilch and Swida are notable examples) - and fought against the Soviet advance. See Zimmerman 275-298. Now - I'm not sure how I'd place these Polish partisan units in the order of battle, but they did exist. The Polish underground were in a complex position - to an extent, their "game plan" at this stage in the war was to delay the Soviet advance in the East while trying to gain control of turf in the West. The failed Warsaw Uprising being an attempt to present "facts on the ground" of independence, supported by the US/UK - if the Nazis were more rational (by this stage of the war in the East - rationality was the last thing one could say of Hitler's strategy) then they would've pulled back (as opposed to crushing the rebellion themselves, which they did) - leaving a Polish buffer rebellion/state between their retreating forces and the Soviets (instead of committing a few divisions and losing some 25k casualties to the rebellion). As someone with Game theory/finance background - this is a rather clear failure of rational choice theory (as the desperate Polish move (which could be seen as a rational calculus) had a chance of succeeding if the Nazis were a rational player).Icewhiz (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: One of the Soviet Fronts did have a Polish corps; I had thought that "Poland" in the infobox referred to them. But when I saw |combatant2 = {{flag|Soviet Union|1936}}<br>{{flagdeco|Polish Underground State|1944}} [[Polish Underground State|Poland]], I chuckled. That was in 1944, a year after Polish gov in exile and the Soviet Union broke off diplomatic relations. There was some on-the-ground cooperation with the AK, such as around Wilno, but to list the underground state as a co-belligerent in the infobox was a bit much.
Speaking of Bagration, I was thinking of expanding and sourcing the article. If you have any interest in WWII campaigns, I would welcome your input. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong - you were right to remove this, as a few partisan units with local arrangements... Well. The Polish corps in the Soviet army was the future army in the PRL (communist Poland) - indeed not aligned with the government in exile.Icewhiz (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - and I missed this was on the side of the Soviet Union - yes definitely not. Some Home Army units in the east were aligned (ceasefire + supplied by) the Nazis against the Soviets - the Home Army however claims these units were acting "against orders". I probably wouldn't place this in the infobox, but it might be worth mentioning somewhere in the body.Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?

See this comment. Paul Eisen's record is rather clear. Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Denial — not just a river in Egypt. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, I guess I'll just file this one in the back of my mind as it never crossed my mind that being nice to a certain type of people is a goal. Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: If there are more of such utterances, it may be worth looking into the edit history & filing an AN report. Compare with #Lev Kamenev Rollback. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for your review of the 'Minetest' article, K.e.coffman. The link to 'WP:NGAME' will be helpful in my further editing. Again thank you and have a wonderful day, -- Gryllida (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gryllida: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megargee

Hi, I see you have nominated Megargee for GA, I think you might need a cite for his year of birth. I was interested to read of Inside Hitler's High Command; do you have a copy and is it an engaging read? I purchased The Myth of the Eastern Front last year based on your references to it and found it interesting and easy to get through (I struggle with books that are a bit dry). I've been meaning to use the Myth book to improve the Fritz Bayerlein article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: thanks; I added a citation for the DOB. Re: Inside Hitler's High Command, the first entry in Geoffrey P. Megargee#External links is his YouTube lecture based on the book. I found it engaging an look into the inner workings of the German High Command. The chapter dealing with the crisis of the Soviet counteroffensive in Dec 1941 was especially interesting. Megargee has a more recent lecture looking at the topic from a slightly different angle which you might also find interesting: "What Made the Nazi Military Work?". --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will take a look. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Storage Affiliates Trust page

Hello @K.e.coffman:,

I am reaching out in response to your March 12, 2019 rejection of my page for National Storage Affiliates Trust. You noted that it did not pass WP:ORG. I would like to offer some clarifying information as well as inquire about any specific steps you might advise I take to better position this page to succeed.

Extended discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When I previously submitted the article, a separate editor, @Drewmutt:, placed it back in the sandbox with the direction to ensure all sourcing was third party sourcing. In response, I replaced one of the links and clarified that the company's Form 10Q, which I cite twice, is considered factual by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. All other citations are to news reporting and interviews with unbiased reporters in unrelated, independent trade publications and national publications that comment upon the self storage space or the commercial real estate industry. None of these news articles appear to me to be sponsored articles or advertising, but rather seem to be organic coverage of deals or an interview responding to the industry's interest in the CEO. I then re-submitted the page and received your reply.

I have reviewed the notability standards for companies again, and recognize that the five primary criteria are (1) significant coverage in (2) multiple (3) independent (4) reliable (5) secondary sources. I believe that this submission complies with these criteria, and would appreciate any guidance if that belief is incorrect. Over the 6 sentence submission, I scrupulously cited 17 unique sources to be sure that each statement of fact was supported by a citation.

  • (1) Every single source features National Storage Affiliates Trust or one of its subsidiary operators, meeting the "significant coverage" standard within each article. These articles range from reporting property acquisitions by NSAT; covering stock analysis provided by analysts at unrelated, independent banks; and lauding the joint ventures that NSA has participated in.
  • (2) I consider 17 unique third party sources to be multiple, but if you recommend that I add more citations to the submission, I am happy to in order to better meet this threshold. I added a few additional pieces of coverage bellow in the fourth bullet point.
  • (3) The only source that was not independent reporting by a third party industry-specific magazine was the company's 10Q (cited twice) which, as previously mentioned, is recognized as factual by the SEC. All other sources were recognizably independent institutions such as Nasdaq or were independent commercial real estate trade magazines or highly respected self storage-specific news sources that rely upon reporting from independent journalists. I did not reference a single press release or paid byline by an NSA executive/employee.
  • (4) Reliable sources (hyperlinked to various of their articles on NSA) cited in this submission include nationally recognized publications such as GlobeSt, Bisnow, CoStar, and Nareit, as well as highly regarded trade and regional sources and papers such as Inside Self Storage, Denver Business Journal, Crains Detroit Business, and Benzinga. Other articles from nationally recognized publications featuring NSA that I did not initially include in the submission for providing too much information include this Denver Business Journal article, Commercial Property Executive, and this second GlobeSt article. These magazines and papers carry great cache within the commercial real estate industry and, like the other sources cited, have reputations for fact checking and accuracy.
  • (5) The only source that technically doesn't meet the "secondary" threshold is the 10Q that NSA filed with the SEC. I only cited the 10Q to assure readers that the most recent numbers regarding NSA's AUM, portfolio size by square foot, and number of properties was accurate. All other statements are supported by articles with independent news staff or independent analysts, who certainly possess their own opinions. That being said, since I initially submitted this page for consideration, NSA has filed its annual - and much more detailed - 10K with the SEC, which is independently audited and verified. I've updated my submission to include the more recent figures from this filing, and I believe the fact that this document has been audited and verified should also serve to support my assertion that it is valid for citation.


I have also realized that there may be two more areas with room for clarification. In case you were uncertain whether any individual self storage REIT might qualify as sufficiently notable to require a unique page, I would like to point you to the pages linked below:


Additionally, if you were concerned that NSA is not a large enough player within the self storage space to qualify as notable within the industry and deserve a unique Wikipedia page, I am eager to clarify. As mentioned above, Wikipedia has actually granted unique pages to companies with smaller self storage portfolios than NSA:

  • These companies include, as reported by Inside Self Storage, U-Haul International, StorageMart, W.P. Carey, Simply Self Storage, National Storage REIT, World Class Holdings, and the Lock Up Self Storage Company. NSA holds a larger self storage portfolio by square footage than each of these companies.
  • Additionally, although U-Haul is driven by other sectors in addition to self storage, Sparefoot reported that U-Haul drew lower annual revenue from self storage in 2018 ($323.9m) than NSA did ($330.89m).


Therefore, when considered according to annual revenue as well as square footage, National Storage Affiliates Trust is certainly a comparable and notable REIT within the self storage industry and should qualify equally for a unique page.

Of course, those concerns may not have been the issue with the submission at all, and I would be happy to address any of your questions - I just wanted to make sure you had all of the relevant information. If you have any thought on how I might proceed with re-submitting the page for consideration, or edits to the page to better clarify, I would greatly appreciate your time.

Thanks very much, and apologies for the novel-length message.

Aislinnlily (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Aislinnlily[reply]

@Aislinnlily: please see WP:PAID. If you are being compensated for your edits, you must disclose this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: I am not getting paid to write this page. I am new to Wikipedia and picked a niche subject that I thought would be a good way to get started, since I'd seen (and used) several self storage pages previously. I put a lot of time into figuring out the rules and the wiki text and thinking about how best to succeed, so when I received your reply I wanted to respond thoroughly and learn how I might improve, or where I might have been misinterpreting expectations. If you have any other questions or comments about the page itself, I would love to hear them. Thanks for your time. Aislinnlily (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aislinnlily: WP:NCORP and especially WP:CORPDEPTH would be useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate the insight. I will read the sections you suggest and work to ensure that all of my citations meet that standard (I will likely change a few!) before moving forward and re-submitting the article in the future. If there's anything else I can do to better position my submission please let me know! Aislinnlily (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

March
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving article quality in March - click on "March" for travel pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter G Demers

Hello - Congratulations on your award for distinguished editing. I've trimmed my entry on Peter G Demers considerably. I also have full rights to the image and the context pictured in the certificate. I am submitting the page for your review. Thank you. MarionPB (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarionPB: I Would let another reviewer handle it. The draft is in the queue and will be reviewed in due time. Meanwhile, you still need to provide financial disclosure on your User page. Please see WP:PAID for more details. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Speer

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For rescuing Albert Speer from almost certain delisting. Szzuk (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Szzuk: no, thank you — since you are doing most of the work. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to each of you for an FA article, which requires fine, detailed, npov work. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle Factory

Hello, I saw that you removed the article I wrote about Triangle Factory, I'm quit upset about this since I worked on it with other creators. I got help and advice from other wikipedians to remove certains things, such as peacock words and I did. I'm under te impression the article could not be seen as an advertisement anymore. I admit that in the beginning I used too much peacock words and internal links, but after 2 weeks of cleaning up the article (and having creators tell me it was good now) I am sure that it was a factual article with enough references to establish notability. However, you seemed to think otherwise and just deleted the whole article instead of marking it for improvement. The article told me to to contact you if I wanted to have the contents back for improvements, so I would like to do that. And If it is possible I would like to ask you to give me some feedback on what caused you to just delete the article when it clearly wasn't an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VindevogelTaho (talk • contribs) 12:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VindevogelTaho: The draft was declined 5 times: Submission was declined on 24 February 2019 by CASSIOPEIA, on 14 February 2019 by Praxidicae, on 13 February 2019 by WikiDan61,con 12 February 2019 by SportingFlyer, and on 12 February 2019 by CASSIOPEIA. It's a non-viable draft, unfortunately. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was indeed deleted cause I didn't know how to write articles at first, it had gotten alot better and the last reviewer said it just needed a dutch person to check for notability... I am more than willing to improve the article if it reads too much like an advertisement. If you can give me proof that a dutch person reviewed the sources and said it wasn't notable than I'll agree, but i'm 100% sure it is notable, that's why I tried learning wikipedia and improving the article over 2 weeks instead of giving up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VindevogelTaho (talk • contribs) 09:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:EarthQuaker Devices

​Hi, I wanted to check with you and see if the edits I've made to the draft address your concerns about notability. I've added several extensive sections on the history of the organization, their sales and growth, as well as their design process and outreach events. I've drawn on several newspapers, interviews, magazines, and other sources. I would greatly appreciate your guidance in continuing to develop this draft and prepare it for publication on Wikipedia. Potatowrite (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Potatowrite: no, I don't believe so. However, you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Albert Speer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have been repeatedly warned that this source is unreliable because the author claims to be able to read minds.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.e.coffman&oldid=890090203"