Open main menu

Deportation of the KalmyksEdit


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.


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

@Twofingered Typist: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you still interested in a GA review of the article? The copy edit is done.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@3E1I5S8B9RF7: thank you for the reminder; I've initiated the review process. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the GA review. It was professional and effective.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@3E1I5S8B9RF7: Thank you; I appreciate it. It was a pleasure to review such a well-researched article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Operation BagrationEdit

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)

@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)
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)
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)
@Icewhiz:I found where the bogus information was added, in Dec 2018: [1], replacing {{flagdeco|Poland|1928}}[[Polish Armed Forces in the East|Poland]] with "Polish Underground State". I would still not put Poland (in either incarnation as a co-belligerent, but at least the former version had a basis in reality, as the 1st Byelorussian Front had the Polish I Corps in the Soviet Union in its order of battle for Bagration. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
We could specify Polish People's Army as a combatant (at the time - the competing underground/embryo state vs. the Home Army). I'm not sure if we have a flag for them (though it seems - [2] they flew the Polish state flag without the coat of arms in 1945) - if we use a national flag it should be - File:Flag of Poland (1928–1980).svg. It definitely should not be "plain Poland" (as it was prior to the December edit) - as at that state of the war the meaning of Poland is ill defined (and those who follow Western convention - if at all see the Home Army and the government of exile as Poland). Or just leave it as unspecified - e.g we don't have all the Baltic collaborators (on the side of Germany) listed in the infobox.Icewhiz (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Albert SpeerEdit

  The Article Rescue Barnstar
For de-mything Albert Speer. Szzuk (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: no, thank you — since you are doing most of the work. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Kudos to each of you for an FA article, which requires fine, detailed, npov work. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I had stopped editing the article and unwatched because I decided too much work was required. Your edits brought me back. I've slightly altered the wording of the barnstar on the assumption it is more in line with your work (revert it if you prefer). I keep my own personal userpages empty, it is my way of dealing with the obvious. Szzuk (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:EarthQuaker DevicesEdit

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)

@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)

@K.e.coffman: Thanks for letting me know. I'll ask for some additional advice and see if I can't improve the text in the meanwhile. Thank you again for the feedback! Potatowrite (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

[Alleged] Edit WarringEdit

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.

AN discussionEdit

K.e. Considering he is the one who has been blocked for 48 hours, I would say you can remove this warning above, if you wish. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kierzek: Thank you for the suggestion. I rarely remove posts from my Talk page, so I'll keep this one. But I adjusted the header to indicate that the warning was made on bogus grounds. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Cervecería Dos AvesEdit

Hi!! Hope you are well. I wrote the following page: and you rejected it. I found all of my sources online, and none are written by me. I used the following page as a template to write mine: I'm not sure what more I can do. Please advise. Thanks!! Fkameko (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fkameko: Please review WP:NCORP and especially WP:CORPDEPTH. I did not find the subject to meet these requirements and that's why I declined it. Separately, if you are being compensated for your edits, you need to disclose it. Please see WP:PAID. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:GNP EnergyEdit

Hi. I am working on the following page:, and you rejected it due to notability. I have used this as a template:, and I firmly believe that my article meets the same standards. Could you perhaps help me determine how to increase its notability and improve the content? All sources should be impartial and trustworthy. Have a nice day! peterkragh (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Peterkragh: :Please review WP:NCORP and especially WP:CORPDEPTH. I did not find the subject to meet these requirements and that's why I declined it. Separately, if another company has an article, it does not mean that it would pass today's notability guidelines or that it won't be deleted in the future. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Coordinated smear campaignEdit

FYI, someone on Reddit Wikipedia is accusing you of being pro-Nazi for “attacking opponents of Hitler” (read: removing Clean Wermarcht nonsense front Wikipedia). Whoever posted this went to a lot of effort to twist your actions and make you look despicable. I debated whether it was worth bringing this to your attention, but the post has hundreds of upvotes and looks like it could spread. (If you’re already aware of this, then my apologies for bringing it up on your talk page). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

On Clean Wehrmacht nonsense, in Herman Wouk's The Winds of War and War and Remembrance, Armin von Roon writes "history" from the CW perspective. I'd mention it in the article, but haven't found any secondary source for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: There is much popular history / hobbyist literature written from the "clean Wehrmacht" POV, either because the authors are not aware of this, or because they are only interested in battlefield action, which is a rather myopic view. Even the older academic literature, especially if it extensively used Wehrmacht generals' memoirs as sources, falls into the same trap. So it's not surprising that such sources are used and defended here -- even though these debates are decades out of date, as Stahel puts it. BTW, the Battle for Wikipedia article is no longer available online, but I saved a PDF. I'd be happy to email it if there's interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Spirit of Eagle: Thank you for the concern. This is probably related to a recent incident; see: #AN discussion. The comments at AN were getting more and more unhinged, ending with this: [3]. So I would not be surprised if this were the same user. Such comments are unpleasant, but they don't faze me any more. ----K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
What I found interesting/enjoyable in Wouk's novels is the fictional use of CW. The reader is given excerpts of the fictional World Empire Lost (I think it was called), which also includes comments from the American translator who tells us when he thinks von Roon is talking bullshit. Really good books. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Interesting; I watched portions of the miniseries but did not realise that there was an epistolary component in the book. I'll check it out. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
-In writing this book, I have only one aim: to defend the honor of the German soldier. Yeah, that's a change between the versions, apart from "his book", Roon is hardly in the plot at all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

My grandfather served in the United States Army during WWII, and I’m sure he would have been absolutely fascinated to learn about all the “opponents of Hitler” he fought during the war. Sarcasm aside, thanks a lot for your efforts to clean up bad history and pro-Nazi nonsense. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, and I’m glad you’re not fazed by these attacks. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Help with Article for DeletionEdit

Hi K.e.coffman, Would you be able to offer your expertise reviewing an article that was deleted due to notability issues.The deleted article was moved to my talk page and I have subsequently started to update it here: I know you were someone who originally flagged this for deletion, so thought you'd be a good person to talk with. Thanks! --ScottHin45 (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@ScottHin45: As having been deleted via a deletion discussion, this would need to go through Wikipedia:Deletion review to be restored. However, I don't believe that success would be likely as the company, in my estimation, is non-notable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Gustav KrukenbergEdit

K.e. - I circled back to do some work on this article, after re-adding it to my watchlist. I have added some detail and RS citing and looking at the talk page, back in December 2015, you brought up a discussion about his service time in the USSR. If you still have the Smelser and Davies book (and have the time), can you fill that in. It sounds as if he was training Bandenbekämpfung units. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kierzek: Thank you for letting me know. Yes, I have the book; I will have a look this week. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


Hey. Take a look at User:Icewhiz/sandbox#EHESS. I'm mulling writing this up - it definitely passes notability, though I might wait for more sources (they seem to be coming out quite a bit this month - and seeing the authors - probably will be in journals as well). The problem at this point is that while there are sources in English - sourcing in French is more copious (there's also an excellent recent piece in German in Neue Zürcher Zeitung)- and I'd prefer to do this only off of English. What do you think?Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "K.e.coffman".