User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/September

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in July! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

for your tireless effort in improving History content on Wiki by taking the "clean Wehrmacht" myth head on! I only knew about it when it was mentioned on the Military History WikiProject newsletter The Bugle. Amazing effort. Yosy (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt and Yosy: thank you; I appreciate it. Yosy, in addition to the Bugle op-ed, you may also be interested in this article:

• Stahel, David. "The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of 'Lost Victories'?". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. 31 (3). Retrieved 21 July 2018.

The journal article is available in full at the above link. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. Very informative. Keep it up!! Yosy (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

... and for August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is OberRanks and fabricated sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Ronald Smelser

On 3 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ronald Smelser, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ronald Smelser's 2008 book The Myth of the Eastern Front focused on the myth of the clean Wehrmacht? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ronald Smelser. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ronald Smelser), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Viewpoint based “edit” decisions at Wiki?

I say yes. Why? Because the story I posted about one George Papadopoulos was summarily deleted, whereas a story by the NYT, also cited on George Papadopoulos’s page at note 18 remains and that story says pretty much the direct opposite of the story I posted. Can we at least agree that at least one of those stories is false? They simply can’t both be true, no? Which means someone is lying. So my question for the editorial board of Wikipedia is this: On what basis have you concluded the older/less current story by the NYT cited at footnote 18 is the truth, whereas more current The Hill article I attempted repeatedly yesterday to post was false? Both pieces offer a perspective on the same exact series of events—and both assert a factual basis for what is written (note the quotations in The Hill piece—-I’m not a media person myself but I think that may be code for “someone no shit said this and we can prove it.” So why the thumbs up to the NYT and thumbs down to the Hill? Could it be the subject of this post? Inquiring minds want to know. Diehlsa (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Diehlsa: Thank you for your message. I'm not sure I'm following, though. The edit that you added was cited to Daily Caller, not The Hill. Could you clarify? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I hope this response makes it through—this isn’t the user friendly view for editing I had before. Please accept my apologies in advance for my technology challengedness—I’ve never ventured into this area of Wiki before but it’s been so fascinating, I really will have to do it more often. To answer your question, I would gladly have cited The Hill article on attempt #3, however, someone in their infinite wisdom decided to ban The Hill as a source so I couldn’t attach the same link. Instead I had to find a story that cited The Hill story. That was a nice touch—good to see there are measures and conscious decisions being made/deployed at Wikipedia to ensure balanced viewpoints are presented. So I guess my follow up question to the WIKIPEDIA editorial board (or whatever the people behind the curtain that decide what does and doesn’t pass muster for Wiki publication call themselves) is this: On what basis was The Hill banned whereas the NYT was not? Is there a published policy or criteria that governs how and under what circumstances a media source can be summarily banned? Is such a decision reviewed independently before being implemented? Is the banned organization advised of its banishment? Are there appeal rights? What are the procedures for appeal? Is the banishment “stayed” while the organization still might file a timely appeal, and, if such an appeal is filed, will banishment be stayed until a decision on the merits is reached? What say you Wikipedia? Inquiring (and undecided minds just looking for the facts) want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehlsa (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehlsa (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC) 

(talk page watcher) Usually a source is discouraged if, by consensus on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, it is found to promote fringe viewpoints or lack robust fact-checking. Note that NPOV does not require that all viewpoints be represented equally (or even represented at all) ; it requires that the opinions are presented with due weight per coverage in reliable secondary sources. As an extreme example, the article on Earth does not include flat Earth as a valid perspective on the shape of the Earth. Catrìona (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Diehlsa, Wikipedia has no "editorial board" of any type. Instead, we have thousands of active individual volunteer editors who work, without assignment, on articles that they choose. I see no evidence that The Hill is "banned" as a reliable source. Where did you hear that? Some sources are clearly unreliable, but the only general news source that is, in effect, banned is the British tabloid Daily Mail. That is because of their very long history of publishing lies and completely fabricated stories. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The reference from The Hill is an opinion piece, not a news article, and therefore is not acceptable here on Wikipedia as a reliable source in a biography of a living person. It contains highly opinionated statements like "Geez, sounds more like a topic for a Miss Universe contestant’s essay on world peace than the opener of a James Bond movie." Actual reliable sources report that Papadopoulos has pled guilty and admitted lying to the FBI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your questions are fair enough Cullen328. Regarding the “banning” of The Hill, on my third attempt to post this I was greeted with a pop up window that contained the following statement: “Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia’s blacklist. To save your changes now, you must go back to the blocked link (shown below) and then save. ...”

There is more text in the pop up—I took a picture of it but I of course can’t figure out how to attach it to this thread. The wording of the pop up was very troubling to me. Why? Well, it would be one thing I suppose to flag the particular article for banishment but that isn’t what the pop up said. Note it plainly and unequivocally states the “site” has now been blacklisted. I did find the upfront acknowledgement to an official Wikipedia “blacklist” to be refreshing from a candor perspective—one point for Wiki for transparency! How exactly does a media site get “registered” on this “blacklist” (seriously, A+ for transparency in owning up to exactly what the purpose of that list is—-isn’t censorship grand?). Who has the authority or Wiki site permissions to do that? Can I ban a site (I hope the answer is yes—such an exciting concept to be able to do that...I hope the power doesn’t go to my head)? If I were able to register a “site” on the acknowledged Wikipedia “blacklist” are there any criteria I have to follow or is it basically up to me if a site is ok or banned? Would my decision be reviewed by anyone—or anyones—prior to the blacklisting going into effect? See the pop up, which genuinely startled me as it laid bare some of the darker implications of an “open” forum such as Wiki, raised more questions than it answered—it was a very Alice Through the Looking Glass kind of moment for me truth be told—all on my first attempt to edit an article on Wiki! How lucky am I right?!? (I think I may have to buy a lottery ticket ticket today—what is it, Powerball day? It’s a fact that you won’t win if you don’t play, right?) Some other questions the pop up brought immediately to mind include: What other media sources are on this list? Can I see the total/full list of sites currently blacklisted? Do these sites know they have been blacklisted? How long does a site stay banned—are they automatically released from “jail” after a set period of time—put another way, is official Wiki blacklisting a life sentence without possibility of parole or at some point could a site redeem itself and get back in the good graces of the Wiki community? Who decides if, when and under what circumstances a blacklisting ends? Also, insert the same appeal and procedural questions I asked previously above here. More than happy to share the screen shot photo, if someone would guide my technology challenged self in figuring how to upload it onto this thread. Oops—I have kids to get out the door—weekend sporting events and all. Will return later to address the comment about “opinion” pieces generally being unacceptable on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehlsa (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Diehlsa, please read Wikipedia:Spam blacklist, which explains how the blacklist works, and includes links to pages with countless details. This may be a case of URL redirection which is useful technology, but can be used to facilitate spamming. The blacklist blocks those sites. Accelerated Mobile Pages is an example, and I often find that I get URLs blocked by the blacklist that have "amp" somewhere in the URL. I then do a Google search on the headline and can always find a "cleaner" URL than does not get blocked by the blacklist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

So here is my comment about the validity of rejecting The Hill piece on the grounds that it is an “opinion” piece. I mean it is plainly labeled by The Hill as such, right? But does the mere fact that the NYT piece cited at note 18 isn’t labeled as such, therefore make it a “fact” piece or somehow more credible or reliable? I think not. Why? Well this is what appears in the current wiki page, presented apparently as a “fact”, since opinions are a no-no.

“On April 26, 2016, at a breakfast meeting at a London hotel, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that he had just learned from high-level Russian officials in Moscow that the Russians had “dirt” on Mrs. Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.”

Based on the Hill piece, this statement is false. So one thing is patently clear—at least one of these stories is a bunch of BS. But which one should you choose? Well, if I had to pick one, I’d pick the Hill article. And the reason has absolutely nothing to do with ANY political perspective I personally may hold. Nope—it all goes to the quantum and value of the evidence and on that point, the Hill article is plainly superior to the NYT piece. Instead of relying on “unnamed” sources for their “facts” like the NYT did, the Hill has EVIDENCE—they have copies of the very emails that Prof Mifsud sent, directly to the FBI. So when the Hill puts something in quotations, they are directly and transparently quoting the authoritative source for whatever is being asserted—they are quoting Prof Mifsud himself. Wouldn’t he be a more credible and reliable source on what he did or did not say to the FBI when they came across the pond to interview him?I would think that would be the case. The factual “pedigree” of the NYT is completely obscured——I mean the implication is this unnamed “source” is some government big Whig that is “in the know” about these things but for all we know, this reporter and his neighbor were shooting the shit about politics at a neighborhood BBQ and the reporter liked what his neighbor said so much, that viola!, the neighbor, who just happens to work for the federal government, is transformed into an “unnamed source”. (We’re EVERYWHERE in/around DC, so it is highly plausible that one of his neighbors is a federal employee.) In some places the NYT does quote someone: John Brennan—the guy that lied, multiple times, under oath...to Congress, and got away with it!! Who does that and gets away with it?!? So Brennan can’t be leaned on as a trusted source of anything! I therefore would submit that the currently “acceptable” NTY article is neither a “fact” piece, nor is it an “opinion” piece—rather it is a “propaganda” piece—but shouldn’t that be counted the least and questioned/verified the most?? I just can’t fathom why the NYT article is accepted by Wiki as gospel while the Hill article is rejected by Wiki out of hand.....unless....unless it’s just someone’s OPINION that the NYT piece is more credible..??... But I thought the rule was opinions are a no-no...? Gosh but now I’m really confused. Could you help me understand why my thinking/logic on why the Hill piece should be adopted over the NYT piece is all wrong? What is it about the NYT piece that makes it “better”? Regardless of that answer/rationale, if the Hill deletion stands, then the NYT piece has got to go as it clearly is inferior to the Hill in terms of “believably.” I will gladly withdraw my objection to deletion of the Hill piece, if citation 18 and all text appearing on the page itself that pertains to citation 18, is likewise deleted.

P.S. Wanted to express my gratitude for this little gem of a note I received from MelanieN out there in wiki land. It really speaks volumes about what Wiki is all about.

“You have added this same information to the article three times. This is to warn you about WP:Edit warring; if you add it a fourth time you could be subject to sanctions. Take it to the article's talk page, and explain why you think the material is properly sourced and should be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)”

I’m taking the resounding silence as agreement that if The Hill article can’t be added, then the NYT article that was citation #18 has got to go as well. So I’ve just deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehlsa (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I have seen the situation and restored the NYT source as it is accurate, and the weight of RS backs it up. Contrary versions are usually found in unreliable sources (those which back up the deceptive conspiracy theory pushed by the Trump/Putin coalition), so the due weight they deserve is no mention at all. The Daily Caller is not a RS. Period. The Hill can be, but its articles vary widely in character and quality, spanning from the quality of a New York Times or Washington Post article, to nearly InfoWars trash defenses of Trump's worst misdeeds. It's one of the most inconsistent sources around, so should be approached with caution. As for Mifsud, he's a conflicted witness who can't be trusted. He's in mortal danger from Putin and needs to be careful. He'll say anything to save his skin. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Walloon Legion

You once helped me remove hagiographic material about Léon Degrelle from Wikipedia. I have finally got round to re-writing Walloon Legion and I thought you might be interested in taking a look. I am aware that the current draft is not very elegant, but I do think it is an improvement. Do feel free to hack away at it! All best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: thank you for your message. Is there anything specific you'd like me to look at? --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it might benefit from a second glance over its flow and syntax, if you have time? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I just did copy edit on it, but certainly, K.e., you can have a look see. Kierzek (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"The Battle for Wikipedia" article

Saw this over at the milhist page, it is reads an awful lot like the Bugle article and the ARBCOM case..... But not reference to either....Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thanks for the concern, but it's not the case. One could say that there are similarities because of the common origin of both pieces — my email to historians, which can be seen here: User:K.e.coffman/Email. Stahel also provided a statement to ArbCom for which I asked him to review the Hoepner Talk page: User:K.e.coffman/Statement B. The combined result was the journal article:

• Stahel, David. "The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of 'Lost Victories'?". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. 31 (3). Retrieved 21 July 2018.

The article is available in full at the above link. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: It was also covered here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-08-30/Recent research. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

AFD cal Simmon's SPAs

Do you think we have enough on them to request a CU or file an SPI? For a page that only gets an avg of 4 views a day, I find them turning up suspicious, but the six day delay between the two is odd, esp roundrobinguy would be the master if it was confirmed. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1: sorry, I'm not sure what this is about. Could you clarify? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Simmons you had tagged Mantosa and Roundrobinguy67 as single purpose accounts. Do you think there is enough evidence in their contribs to request a checkuser? ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1: it's likely that it's the same person, although these seem like throwaway accounts, so I'm not sure if SPI would be necessarily effective in preventing future disruption. But it would not hurt; not sure if it can help identify sleepers -- you could ask. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 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 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Naomi Osaka nationality/ethnicity

Hello, and thank you for contributing to the Rfc at Talk:Naomi Osaka. It may or may not interest you to know that an additional option was added (by me) after you made your contribution(s).
This is not a canvas, just an invitation to have another look at the RfC if you're interested. Regards. Scolaire (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Christopher Browning

Hi K.e.coffmann, I'm not sure where you live; given your interests, I thought I'd let you know that Christopher Browning, author of Ordinary Men : Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, New York : HarperCollins, 1992, will be in Pittsburgh, PA next week. He's giving a presentation on the new release of Ordinary Men, at Carnegie Mellon University next week. flyer here. auntieruth (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: thank you for letting me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

image does not meet FUR guidelines

Can you please specify what does it mean and possibly help to improve the image or its description so it can be preserved? Just putting some acronym in the summary really doesn't help me to understand, what to avoid or do next time. Thanks in advance. --Honzula (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Honzula: A screenshot from a movie used in an article on the movie or the actor almost never going to meet the criteria laid out in WP:NFCCP, especially this one:

Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

For a movie, an image of the poster would work. For a bio, the portrait of the subject is acceptable, when used in the infobox at the top of the page. Etc. But not a screenshot to illustrate a role that the actor played. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What about the depiction of the legend? Will be the use of the screenshot OK? --Honzula (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Honzula: unfortunately, that would not work either. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, K.e.coffman. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 2,428 pending submissions to update I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. Would you please consider applying to become an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. After requesting to be added to the project, note that reviewing is not mandatory, and can be done at your convenience. You can read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: Thank you for the information. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Waffen-SS in post-war Germany

Hi K.e.coffman, you would like to ask your advice. You, being the creator of the Waffen-SS in popular culture and Clean Wehrmacht articles as well as well as having edited HIAG extensively strike me as possibly the best to ask. The current Waffen-SS article lacks any part of the role it's veterans played in post-war Germany and it's perception there, other then the HIAG section. I have done a bit of investigation into that matter as I was especially interested in the influence it had in the new German armed forces. The Waffen-SS article is pretty high profile (also not rated a good article at this stage) and I don't feel quite confident in adding a massive section to it without another opinion. Could you please have a read of whats in User:Turismond/sandbox (at your leisure, no rush), and let me know what you think. Regards, Turismond (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The section, "HIAG lobby group" does cover a main part of their post-war role, but if you want to add as to the post-war with WP:RS cites, have at it; just keep in mind article size from a byte stand point. Kierzek (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Turismond: this looks good in general. Would you mind if I edited your sandbox? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, I would appreciate it. Feel free to add it to the Waffen-SS article if you think it suitable. Given Kierzek's suggestion above I just wonder if it is not to large a section now? It got a bit bigger then I thought it would. I'm not sure however whether it is suitable for a stand-alone article and, if yes, what such an article should be called. Turismond (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Turismond: I did a light copy-edit. It almost feels like a stand-alone article, which could be named Waffen-SS veterans in post-war Germany. Then a summary could be added to the main article. I was also unclear on the use of "militaristic"; did you mean "military"? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did. The article title is a good choice, I think. I will get back to it once I got somewhere with Draft:Caiazzo massacre, unless you want to complete and move it. Feel free. Turismond (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. I have added an intro (something I found a bit difficult to compose) and moved the article now. Turismond (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

IBM during WWII

Thanks for your comments on the discussion. As an aside: IBM during World War II, IBM Gets An Ugly History Lesson (Forbes, 2001). There were of course many others - chemical companies, car manufacturers etc. François Robere (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)(

@François Robere: thank you for the links. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Panzerlied

A message for Ke.coffman: I edited the Panzerlied article by reverting it to the August 2018 version due to the fact that it had been cut down to almost nothing. I did not think I had to include citations on a reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LonePilot (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge thought

In looking at List of civil decorations of Nazi Germany and Political decorations of the Nazi Party, I believe they should be merged. The former into the latter. They are both pretty poor in presentation; being in need of work and more RS citing. What do you think? Kierzek (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kierzek: this sounds reasonable. I would also suggest removing the red links. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will get to it sometime soon, hopefully. Have to work on something else first. Kierzek (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal now listed. Kierzek (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

So long as they're valid awards, nothing wrong with redlinks. See WP:REDLINK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: How do you define a "valid award"? --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Good question, something more than a certificate of achievement, I guess.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: shouldn't it be more along the lines of being a notable award, i.e. something for which an npov article could be developed? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

While I've never been interested in German awards, other than what they can reveal about German reorganizations, I've seen books on Nazi uniform buttons, so I have little doubt that somebody, somewhere, has written an RS book that covers every single decoration created or used by the Nazis.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: somebody, somewhere, has written an RS book that covers every single decoration... , a "book" is plausible, but "RS" -- doubtful. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, uniform fanatics often dive deep into archival info to decide whether a unit had the 1804-pattern or the the 1811-pattern buttons at a given date, forex. I'm willing to presume that awards fans might do much the same. And there are enough people who share those peculiar enthusiasms that the books sell, so they're not necessarily forced to be self-published. Not my thing, so I can't say for sure, but I'd not be willing to lay money against RS coverage existing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Mike Gooley

Good afternoon, I wonder if you can help. The page on Mike Gooley was converted from a very short article to a redirect on 20:04, 17 June 2017. We were made aware of this when a member of the public got in touch to ask us where the page was. ( I am an employee of Trailfinders which Mike owns) I understand it was taken down on the rationale that Mike doesn't meet the Wikipedia guidelines on notability which is completely understandable given much of the information was out of date, much was missing and the piece was generally lacking citations. Would it be possible for you to re-instate the page so I can update it to the level where I believe it will merit it's own page please. thanks Lee L.d.holden (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.d.holden (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC) @L.d.holden: please review the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Email as source

Hey there, your attention would be appreciated. I know you've done this before. François Robere (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: I commented. Separately, did the author give the permission to publish the email on Wiki? That was the first thing that I asked about when communicating with third parties. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I first called the author, explained the situation and asked for a written reply "so it can be shown to others" ("others" being the other participants in the discussion). The author also made clear that he's aware of the sometimes hostile nature of discussions on Wikipedia, and was happy to be contacted for clarifications. François Robere (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: as long as the author is okay with the contents of their email being publicly shared, I don't see a need for further corroboration as to its authenticity. If other editors truly believe that you've fabricated this email, all they need to do is to contact the author themselves.

For the statements that I used, since they were part of ArbCom proceedings, I also took the step to ask the authors to email their statements to the Committee directly, as shown here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence#Addendum: Historians' statements.

But since your query is just about a Talk page discussion, your word should be sufficient. Hope this helps. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Very much so. Thank you. François Robere (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)