User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2019/June

June
cornflowers
	... with thanks from QAI

Archives

A question

Hi, I found you mention a Bialostok photo on the page that seems to belong to you [1]. I mean the "Welcoming banner vs election notice" picture. Although I tend to agree that the election announcement version looks much more reasonable (for many reason), I would like to figure out for sure what was the original description of the photo, because a google image search gives two conflicting descriptions ([2] vs [3]), and the second group description belongs to the sites that mirror Wikipedia. Do you have any idea on how could an original description be obtained? Regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert: Please see: [4], where the actual caption is shown. The matter was discussed on my talk page previously: User_talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/December#For_your_wall_of_distortionist_shame, where I picked the link from. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul - the first link you give is to a pinterest page, which is hardly going to be a reliable source for the information. The second link is to a wikipedia mirror, so again, not a reliable source. I can't say that the content.onliner source is much better... it would be best to find this image in an archive somewhere or at least on a site where we have some context on where the image comes from. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once images go on commons there is a big CITOGEN issue. I will note I verified this not only via the musuem poster - but by the Yiddish writing on the sign itself - the first line reads "election day".Icewhiz (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a google translate of the content.onliner site with the pic - so that's at least giving us where the image comes from. That link really needs to go with the commons page for it, until we find something better. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, a high resolution picture resolves the issue: the photo uploaded to Commons didn't allow us to understand what does the poster say. The higher resolution image resolves a situation: the word "וואַלן" is clearly seen in the first line, so the first description was obviously a deliberate fake, which is an demonstration of a strong anti-Jewish mood among some fraction of Polish society (and, alas, among some Wikipedia users).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been named

Our good friend Tatzref - diff at ARBCOM. I mildly tickled by various aspects. In particular I took time to verify - "Michlic has herself been exposed as a biased author who specializes in detecting alleged antisemitism at every turn" - the cited source (Zimmerman, pages 103-104) doesn't support this. Zimmerman contrasts Michlic's assertion of "negative views", "emotive distance", and "anti-Jewish prejudices" with Jan T. Gross's assertion that Rowecki advocated the government should avoid anything that could be "construed as advocacy on behalf of the Jews" (probably due to Polish public opinion which would be negative - per other bits in the book) on a rational basis, and that he himself was not an antisemite according to Gross's mother - Hanna Szumanska who knew Rowecki personally. I'd say that Zimmerman doesn't quite support Tatzref's conclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page 'a space' arts

Hi there, I was wondering if I could get the deleted copy from the recently deleted 'a space' arts page. I wanted to do some edits to bring it to the required standards for Wikipedia and would prefer not to start from scratch again. I'd also really really appreciate any guidance on what specifically needs changing within the article, if possible! Thanks, Tom. Tombrewster (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tombrewster: if you click on the red link here: Draft:'a space' Arts, you can see the reasons why the page was deleted. Beyond promotionalism, it is also on a non-notable subject. It's a non-viable draft, unfortunately. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.Coffman: Okay, I understand that it's non-viable, but I don't see how specifically it differs from, say, Spike Island Artspace's Wikipedia page, for example. The organisation has had coverage in multiple, independent, reliable newspapers (The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Echo, The Bournemouth Echo) which would suggest notability - or perhaps there's something obvious I'm missing there. Tombrewster (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.Coffman: Hi, just wanted to quickly flag this again and try and get to a resolution! Just need to know where in particular I'm going wrong, thanks Tombrewster (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tombrewster: The process to contest a deletion is Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, I don't think that it would be successful because the topic is not notable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.Coffman: I understand pages that aren't notable are eligible for deletion, but I want to know why 'a space' arts isn't notable. In the article, and as I've mentioned above, the organisation has had significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable newspapers. It's just as notable as Spike Island Artspace, who themselves have a Wikipedia page. Why is 'a space' arts not notable, in this case, if its sources match the criteria? Tombrewster (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

You previously nominated Miss Multinational for deletion. The article is currently being nominated , do you think it should be deleted?-Richie Campbell (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richie Campbell: Looks like it's already been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Multinational (2nd nomination). Thank you for starting the AfD. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you saw...

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland - I'm of two minds. I think it will eventually reach that point, but I'm going to be so busy for the next four weeks moving that I don't need that sort of distraction. And I certainly won't be able to do it justice with evidence. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My question in the above section is related to that. In my opinion, the users who supplemented that image with a highly anti-Semitic description, and the users who see no problem with that may be dangerous to the project. IMO, some actions are required to demonstrate that violation of formal decorum is not the only thing admin are looking at.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. I just don't have the time to document it... trying to move not only a rather large book collection but also a herd of seven horses in the next month. I'm going to be busy (and many of my books are now... packed up to move). In my statement, I linked to some diffs I collected in April dealing with sourcing issues in the subject area. I've got a few more I've found, but there's no way I could do all the heavy lifting for such a case. I was involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG, which has some similarities (although only dealing with misbehavior by one editor) and that ate an insane amount of time. And I'm sure there are sockpuppets, SPAs, and banned users editing under new names throughout the whole area... but proving it... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth and Paul Siebert: yes, it would take a lot to untangle the disputes around this topic. The suggestion to take the current disputes to ANI is a bit odd since AE (much better structured) is already unable to cope. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one?

@Ealdgyth: take a look at diff. Gravedigging was removed in progressive edits in 2013 and 2015 (and I'm not sure when the "no survivors to alert the Stalinist officials to the true significance" was added). The cited source (or rather the previous page on the cited web page - first page (1940s-1950s), second page (late 50s-90s)) - did not quite support the content - it describes a 1945 investigation (completed in 1947, handed over the Germans for their investigation in the 1950s) and also describes gravedigging, investigations into gravedigging, and publicity of gravedigging. Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our 2006 article, which was lacking inline citations (but does have reasonable sources in the sources section) had:

Due to Nazi efforts to erase evidence of the camp's existence near the war's end, almost all traces of the camp disappeared from the surface of the site. The mass graves of the camp's victims remained, however, and in the postwar years some of the local inhabitants disturbed them to look for any valuables buried with the victims. These desecrations became relatively well known all over Poland and were widely condemned in the Polish press of the time. Nevertheless, the practice continued for a number of years, and the Polish authorities were unable to put an effective stop to it. Pursuit of the perpetrators continued into the second half of the 1950s.

which is more or less an accurate rendition of current sources. The whole thing was removed (and with other bits added - e.g. falsely claiming the communists didn't investigate (they actually did - they later suppressed publicity, but they did pass it on), attributing student cleanings from the 1990s to the 1950s, etc.) in successive edits over a few years.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: It may be worthwhile to start a page to document such historical distortions, akin to what's I have on my user page. The entries there are mostly focused on the German war effort, although there's some overlap with the Holocaust in Europe, such as several in User:K.e.coffman#"Ah, partisanen!". Another useful format is User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/OberRanks, if there's value in compiling contributions by socks who had been active in this area. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust in Poland

You named changing template name to "Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" an "unneeded qualifier". There - what is "unneeded" in correcting historical lies? If you name yourself a "Nazi hunter" so proudly, you should not aid Nazi propaganda - part of which is blaming occupied Poland for the holocaust, when only ones responsible are Nazi Germans. Especially that articles in this category are all about German attrocities in Poland (that time annexed and occupied!). Meanwhile title suggests, that it happened in Poland (just like it would happen today, in the independent state on its own). Calling this category "Holocaust in Poland" is as outrageous and as untrue as calling Auschwitz-Birkenau a "Polish death camp", is a calumny against the victims of Nazi regime, and is a part of a post-war nazi propaganda to whitewash nazi crimes by attributing them to other nations. Please rethink your motives. --Kasabian (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This needs to be unified, peferably mentioned in MoS. A quick look shows no German occupied in France, but German occupied in Lithuania. Anyway, I also noticed History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Czech_Republic#The_Holocaust is rather short and terribly referenced (compare, for example, to The Holocaust in Slovakia). Maybe some other talk page stalker or you would consider stubbing this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kasabian: I assume you mean this: [5]. Note that the underlying article is named "The Holocaust in Poland". If you wish to correct this historical lie, you should propose that the article be moved to "The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland". The process for this is Requested Moves: Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. By why stop there? You can visit Category:The Holocaust by country and request moves for other pages in the category, so that "The Holocaust in Italy" becomes "The Holocaust in German-occupied Italy" and so on. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find the above comment malicious. Please respect other editors, who don't share your sense of humor. Many members of my family died during the war. Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comparing Italy, which was the sovereign state (at least from 1939 to 1943) to Poland, which was independent only for 1 month of 6-year long war? You must be kidding. But yeah, actually to be historically accurate the history of Holocaust on Italian lands should be split between 1939-1943 part, during which an INDEPENDENT Italian state participated in the Holocaust by organising transport of Jews to German death camps, and part 1943-1945, during which Germans organised transport of remaining Jews from then occupied Italian lands. There is no such problem in Polish case though, we may rejoice! Since the persecution of Jews started only in october 1939, which coincidentally matches the time of the fall of Poland, and installing German regime over polish land. Please don't cut yourself on those edges, though, mr. "I have no clue, but i like to pose as neo-nazi hunter cause that makes me look cool". And once more - please rethink your motives. What you do there has nothing to do with any "neonazi hunting". Will use the official route though, since "free encyclopaedia" underlies to such incopetent redactorship. --Kasabian (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Vasily Ignatenko

Hello, K.e.coffman,

Thanks for creating Vasily Ignatenko! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for one issue.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Engelking

She is a sociologist. Please write that your sources call her historian, but removal of her legal title is vandalism.

There exists Talk page, which you ignore, so I'm informing you here.Xx236 (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A content disagreement is not vandalism. I suggest you read WP:VAND in order to understand the concept of vandalism on wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She has a title in sociology and a post of a sociologist. Removal of such information is exactly "vandalism". If you want her to be a historian, please quote reliable sources but don't remove "sociologist".Xx236 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Nick-D looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam
Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

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) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier

^[1]Hello, you marked Draft: Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier as a Basque artist not remarkable enough and you asked me for at least one publication in a Spanish national newspaper. Fulfilling your request added the reference to the newspaper, along with the references of the Basque encyclopedia Auñamendi, Royal Academy of the Basque Language, etc ... I would appreciate if the article is accepted. Thank you.--85.84.195.72 (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC). Hello Kecoffman, can you now remove the Draft label and publish the article of the sculptor Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier? Thank you.--85.84.35.57 (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor: I do not plan to review the draft again. It's in the queue and will be reviewed in due time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lezama Perier, Patxi Xabier. "Mitología a golpe de manos y palabras". Deia. Deia. Retrieved 11 June 2019.

AdoptOpenJDK

Hi there, you recently marked Draft:AdoptOpenJDK as not being notable enough. I'm a little confused where this decision came from? The project is backed by several notable companies including; IBM, Microsoft, GoDaddy and Pivotal. I would ask you to reconsider your decision especially as AdoptOpenJDK is referenced in several other Wikipedia articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=adoptopenjdk&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1). Thanks for taking the time to read this and please do let me know if there is any improvements I can make to the article to rectify the problem.

--Gdams1 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gdams1: The relevant notability guideline is WP:NORG. I do not consider the topic notable. However, you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ken O'Rourke (hair stylist)

I would to know why Ken O'Rourke is not a notable person. He has been in vogue as editorials just because you can find anything on google doesnt mean he isnt a person to be know about i have all his articles I believe strongly that he deserves a Wikipedia page Pin3appl385 (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft does not meet WP:BASIC, that's why I declined it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

... for article improvements in June! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dzhanibek Golaev

Can I ask why you accepted the article Dzhanibek Golaev in the state that it was in (and marked it C-class) without fixing any of it? Just wondering. Is it part of a "be-really-nice-to-the-newbies" thing, did you just glance at it and not see much of it, or was it decided solely on notability and not grammar+formatting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanespotterA320 (talk • contribs)

@PlanespotterA320: The articles do not have to be perfect to be accepted at WP:AFC, as long as the subject is notable & the draft is not spam, copyvio or in a foreign language. Grammar / formatting, unless atrocious, do not really come into the decision. Articles can always be improved in mainspace. (Although "Perpetuation" was indeed pretty bad; I fixed it now). --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the grammar and formatting were pretty bad, certainly worthy of an "improvement-needed" tag or something.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]