Guest entryEdit

I have very much enjoyed the your gallery of Wikipedia entries on World War II and wondered if I could submit a guest entry from Nuremberg trials. As well as being terrifically important information in its own right, the best bit is that the table was sortable and allowed the reader to compare major war criminals by their IQ number, rather like Top Trumps... —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I also forgot to link Talk:Nuremberg trials#Julius Streicher above average intelligence ? which provides important scholarly commentary on who "won". —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: Sorry about a belated reply. That's a good one -- I added it to the Investigative Sub-committee on Abuses of Victor's Justice, since the measurements occurred in pre-trial detention. Very fitting. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Revert at Andy NgoEdit

The lead is under discussion and you have made a series of dramatic changes, violating WP:ONUS and WP:BLP. Kindly self revert. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I provided my rationale on Talk: [1]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
You posted your opinion on why the change is "good." This is not an answer to WP:ONUS, particularly this section, which was previously challenged. In August, footage from May was published showing Ngo laughing and joking with armed Patriot Prayer members prior to an alleged attack on a bar frequented by antifa protesters. Ngo did not film the alleged planning or report the attack, but did film parts of the attack itself. Ngo disputes that he was aware of the details of the plan. Following this incident, Ngo left Quillette. Thank you for joining the discussion. I ask that you also follow procedure by restoring the shorter version of the lead while the discussion continues. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
In re: "fI ask that you also follow procedure...", the consensus does not have to be unanimous for the edit to stand. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we are at the point of "consensus". By simple vote counting we are on the cusp but that ignores issues with the edit that were not addressed or were previously addressed and thus we are ignoring prior consensus. Springee (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Consensus is established through discussion, compromise, and agreement, not edit-warring broad changes back into the article, which included previously challenged content, and without so much as a nod to that discussion on the talk page other than a generic "I agree" or "I like it.". Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920:, @Springee: I have a suggestion for both of you in re: Talk:Andy Ngo. It might be worthwhile to avoid overly emotive language, such as "blatant BLP violation"; "blatantly violate NPOV"; "blatantly violated neutrality", to just pick on the use of "blatant". Likewise, bolding is generally unnecessary; some examples:

  • allegation has been denied;
  • Discontent with a short, neutral description is not a reason to start highlighting negative or salacious information in the lead;
  • utterly and completely irrelevant, and so on.

Such language and emphasis create an atmosphere of heightened tension and/or suggests an emergency situation. If the violation is so blatant and obvious, then perhaps BLPN or ANI would be appropriate. If the matter can be resolved on the Talk page, then having bolding or bolding+italics is superfluous. Separately, there's no need for what looks like attempts to dominate discussion everywhere. I.e., in addition to posting to the article's Talk page, you both came here and attempted to sway me into reverting my edits. This looks like an overkill. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, saying others are blatantly (or similar) doing things is more likely to add tension than to persuade. Please note that also applies to things like restoring a disputed edit without establishing consensus first. Virtually everything disputed in that lead change had been previously discussed and the result we had was the consensus if those previous discussions. We had similar back and forths on some of the firearms discussions and often once we got an agreed lead both sides of the previous debates were good about respecting and supporting it going forward. Springee (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commencedEdit

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 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 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Joel HaywardEdit

Hello K.e.coffman. I hope you are fine. I reverted you only because it’s clear to me that a scholar’s bibliography involves not only books but also peer-reviewed articles and other pieces. They belong in the article. I hope you can live with this. All good wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@GorgeCustersSabre: Please see Talk:Joel_Hayward#Trimming; let's continue the discussion there. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Thank you. I will. There are very many other articles about scholars that contain a wider range of their publications than merely books. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


Dahlias in Walsdorf

Thank you for improving articles in September! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Principality of KievEdit

Hello K.e. coffman, why have you reverted my edit to this page? Please read the arguments that I have submitted to KIENGIR about changing city name from Kiev to Kyiv. Kyiv will remplace Kiev everywhere in wikipedia. It is just the matter of time. Titles and Categories will be changed by wiki admins. But, the page content has to be changed by editors. It will be a lon g process, since there are thousands of pages related to Kyiv. Please, do not throw my work in the garbich by reverting, because, what I did, has to be done in any way. Thanks

addressed to another editor. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Arguments to KIENGIR: Hello KIENGIR, I have reverted your change on the page of "Principality of Kiev". There are no inconsistencies with the referred links, because the link names were changed, names of the pictures were not changed, so pictures are still there. Titles cannot be changed right now, since they are locked because of the undergoing discussion about the best way to change Kiev to Kyiv everywhere in Wikipedia. You can see it here:'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_Kyiv_disruption Concerning the inconsistencies: the page cannot say:

- around its capital city Kiev

- Capital Kiev

- Grand Princes of Kiev.

Because the name of the city is Kyiv (not Kiev), as per the main page. Hence "city Kiev", "Capital Kiev", "Princes of Kiev" - dont make any sense, because Kiev, does not exist. Some links are still directing to the pages using "Kiev". But, it is a Work in Progress. There are thousand of pages, and they cannot be corrected just overnight.

   I suggest you to wait until this issue is closed in the noticeboard. Currently these changes lead to such elemental problems I explained in the edit log (on the other hand you may easily mask any Kiev with Kyiv|, and not all article's title have been changed). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC))

There are now any red links. As I explained the name of the city is Kyiv. Hence, rather Kyiv will be masked with Kiev. Concerning titles of articles, I have already explained. Since the change of the main page to Kyiv, all the references to this city should be changed to Kyiv. And this is a lot of work. Noticeboard are discussing the best possible way to do the chage for the titles and categories. And it will be done in one way or another. There will not be Kiev in English Wikipedia, only Kyiv. (exception for chicken-Kiev, LOL) Please do not continue edit warring. T0mk0us (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

   the report exactly approves my concern and what I said, and just the because the main page name changed, it does not mean in the English WP "Kiev" will never be any, see the respective talk at the main page as well. Edit-warring is something you outline in case you continue, since per policy I may fairly revert you at this point.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC))

I don't see any approval of your concern. In every page in English WP containing Kiev, Kiev will be changed to Kyiv. It is just the matter of time. Excluding name of dishes like "Chiken Kiev" of cause. Because it is not even related to the capital of Ukraine Kyiv. I know the policy very well, and if you revert me again - it will be 3rd revert. Which could cost you a block. Like you were alredy blocked many times. Thank you. T0mk0us (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

   You should have read at least what you link to me, or for what I've drawn your attention. Repeating the same that I already reacted does not help. No, you don't know the policy well, the 3rd revert won't cost me a block, and have in mind anyone may still revert you fairly by policy.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC))

I have a question for you.

WHY have you not advised user KIENGIR about his involvment in edit warring? He did as many reverts as me during the last 24 hours. However, in your understanding, he is correct. And me - I am the bad person who is in the edit warring. Seems like you are on the side which wants preserve the transliteration Kiev in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mk0us (talkcontribs) 02:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@T0mk0us: The other editor has already been warned by you: [2]. For the rest, please use Talk:Principality_of_Kiev#Recent_edits where the discussion has already started. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have warned him, but not in the same way as you warned me. And he answered that it is impossible that he will be blocked after the 3rd revert. Ok, I will use the Talk Page Talk:Principality_of_Kiev#Recent_edits. However, I will continue changes from Kiev to Kyiv on all WP pages mentioning Kiev. This must be done, even if you do not want it.

Your recent editing history at Principality of Kiev 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. T0mk0us (User talk:T0mk0us) 01:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

re: emailEdit

Yes, please do. If it's an undisclosed paid editor, send the email to paid-en-wp at as well. MER-C 16:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of comment from Talk:KyivEdit

Hi, this edit [3] removed a comment (together with clerking). One can argue that clerking was disruptive (although it wasn't), but removing a comment is against Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:TPG . Assuming good faith, it was probably a simple mistake on your part, but regardless it should be reverted and the comment should be re-instate (clerking could remain reverted, but it is unclear who benefits from returning to having all those discussions that are all interconnected, to being all over the place).

I have informed admin Mzajac about this on their talk page, but hoping you could return the comment yourself to avoid drama. Thank you,-- (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Flacks GroupEdit

Can you explain to me, why the draft does not meet the notability guidelines?

As told at the notability guidelines for companies, there are many notable links (Bloomberg, Wirtschaftswoche(one of the biggest business magazines in germany)and many more). --E.fruchtman (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @E.fruchtman: I did not find the subject notable under WP:NCORP. Please feel free to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleted comment by youEdit

Hi K.e.coffman. I see that together with my reorganizing the headers of post RM discussion you also deleted my comment there. Please restore my comment, as I am assuming you deleted it accidentally. Thanks-- (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)