PROFILPELAJAR.COM

February
The Hidden Valley, Negev
	... with thanks from QAI

Archives

Wikipedia:VERYFINEPEOPLE listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:VERYFINEPEOPLE. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:VERYFINEPEOPLE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

we thank you

Thank you for article improvements in February! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicion of COI is not reason enough to revert other editors

Dear KEC, I find this rather worrisome. I do not believe any part of WP:COI requires an editor to disclose any COI to be allowed any topics they want. While as you know I am active in 'hunting' for WP:PAID-violators, this is a bit different, as we are not dealing with a spam-entry creator. While it is possible that User:Tatzref works for CPC, it is also unlikely - citing works of an NGO doesn't mean one works for them, one just may agree with their POV or such. It would be nice if Tatzref disclosed something about himself on his userpage, but AFAIK he is totally within his rights to be as anonymous as he wants to. As you are of course well aware, I, for one, do not edit under any anonymous protection, I fully reveal who I am - but if others chose not to do so, they have the right to remain anonymous, and we should respect it.

On the other hand, as I said elsewhere, I believe CPS may be a notable NGO and warrant an entry. And further research into it may shed more light on whether its publications would be reliable or not. I think that would be a more constructive line of thought to pursue rather than demand that another editor reveals facts about themselves they are clearly not interested in doing anyway (nor, again, as far as I know, can they be required by us to do so). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Both yours and Tatzref's edits have been challenged as cited to an undue, primary source, if you prefer this explanation. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is much better to focus on sources than editors, so yes, I do prefer we focus on that dimension instead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great; we are on the same page then. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

Yes, feel free to submit it. Take your time, I'm in no rush.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@3E1I5S8B9RF7: I submitted the entry. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Colin Guillarmou

I disagree with your comment on the rejection of the draft for Colin Guillarmou's page. The page is analogous to the one of many mathematicians on Wikipedia. It cites Guillarmou's papers that are published in prestigious scientific journals (Duke Math. J., Inventiones, J. Amer. Math. Soc.; these are among the best 5 mathematical journals). The page also mentions, with due references, two prizes won by Guillarmou (the CNRS bronze medal, the Paul Doistau-Émile Blutet Prize), the invitation to the International Congress of Mathematicians (the congress where the fields medals are awarded; every 4 years the most prominent mathematicians are invited to speak), and the ERC grant. Compare this entry, for instance, to the one of the following mathematicians: Guido De Philippis, Vincent Pilloni, Fanny Kassel, Serge Cantat, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.181.164 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not questioning the subject's accomplishments but the use of his own works as sources in the draft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we refer to a mathematician's accomplishments by quoting its publications is normal. What gives credit to them is the fact that the publications appeared in prestigious journals. For a mathematician, the very top journals are: Acta Mathematica, Annals of Mathematics, Inventiones Mathematicae, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, Duke Mathematical Journal. The caliber of these journals correspond to the one of, say, Nature (journal) for a natural scientist. If you check the Wikipedia page of the other mathematicians that I mentioned, you will see that they all cite the person's best papers. Also, beside the publications, Guillarmou's draft lists the prizes he won and its invitation to the ICM, all with references to independent and official sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.181.164 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you at least check the pages of Guido De Philippis, Vincent Pilloni, Fanny Kassel, or Serge Cantat? Could you tell me what is different in terms of sources in these pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.181.164 (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Warren Shute

Hi, you recently rejected a page I created. This is the 2nd time it has been rejected. After the first time, I had removed anything which could be deemed promotional and added a lot more citations. There are lots of 3rd party links where he is being interviewed as an "expert" in his field.

I have just made a few edits to it now with reducing down anything further which could be thought as promotional. However there are plenty of notable citations. If I am misunderstanding, and you are expecting something else can you please elaborate so I can get this approved.

I have based writing this from looking at a number of other similar person profiles, all of which were approved, and didn't have anywhere near as much citations. VinceWakeman76 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VinceWakeman76: In my opinion, this fails Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 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: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

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) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GAR Notice: Hans Philipp

Hans Philipp, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. –dlthewave ☎ 12:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Draft:We Love MMA

Hello,

thank you for your draft review. I would like to know what makes you think that this event series is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article.

--zeno (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeno Gantner: Hi, In my opinion, this fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another one for the collection

Hi, This really takes the cake for one of the most absurd statements in articles on the Waffen SS. The article claimed that kindly Mr Hitler allowed Estonians who wanted to stay at home to fight the Soviets when German forces retreated from country to do so, and the high rate of take up of this offer led an Estonian SS division to be greatly weakened. Checking a RS shows that Estonian volunteers in the SS were actually forced to retreat with the Germans, and the division was greatly weakened because Soviet forces almost destroyed it during fighting in the campaign... Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is much more "rich", so to speak, in the original wording (not linked above) that was present before:

"When Adolf Hitler authorised the full withdrawal from Estonia in mid September, all men who wished to stay to defend their homes were released from service.^{[citation needed]} Many chose this offer, fighting the Soviets alongside other Estonian units and then withdrawing into the forests to become the Forest Brothers (insurgents). Severely weakened by this, the division was withdrawn to Neuhammer to be refitted."

Kierzek (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kierzek and Nick-D: a good one. I think it's part of the Waffen-SS / nationalist mythology that the unit was not destroyed in the fighting against the "inferior" Red Army but simply decreased in size because of patriotism and German benevolence. Lots to unpack! --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D:@Kierzek:@K.e.coffman: It is much more "rich", so to speak:

“Source fragmentIn September 1944, the German forces withdrew from continental Estonia, and, by the end of the month, most ethnic Estonian units had been evacuated to Germany. But many Estonians wearing German uniforms, including men from the 20th Estonian Waffen-SS Division, did not leave. Some remained in Estonia due to force of circumstance, while others remained in their homeland voluntarily. In Germany, the 20th Estonian Waffen-SS Division was refitted, and reinforced with many Estonians who had been serving in various other units. At the time, there were about 15,000 men in the division, which kept fighting, until the end of the war, in Silesia and Czechoslovakia.” Toomas Hiio, Historian and Research Director of the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory. Works: Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity ; Estonian Units in the Waffen-SS

Even if you were illiterate about Estonia during WWII and not familiar with estonian historians, you could have searched on google books about this and you will have find non-estonian books writting about “considerable number of Estonian officers and soldiers under German command deciding to stay and initiate guerrilla warfare.” These include The Naval War in the Baltic 1939 -1945 by Poul Grooss; German Order of Battle: Panzer, Panzer Grenadier, and Waffen SS Divisions in WWII by Samuel W. Mitcham Jr among others.

Every Estonian learned at school about Estonians in the German armed forces who decided to stay and continue armed resistance as Forest Brothers. The Estonian commander of the 2nd Battalion 46. SS Grenadier Regiment of the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) SS-Sturmbannführer Friedrich Kurg decided to stay among with some of his men when Germany evacuated Estonia in September 1944. He changed his name and remained in hiding and becoming a “forest brother”. In July 1945 he and his daughter tried to visit his elderly father, but he was killed by the NKVD. His daughter miraculously survived being shot in the face and spent the next years in a Soviet prison. That year Kurg sister was murdered by NKVD and his mother was arrested and incarcerated.

So no it’s not “absurd statements” or mythology. On 16 September 1944 Hitler authorized evacuation of Estonia. Considerable number of Estonian officers and soldiers decided to stay and continue armed resistance as partisans. These are the facts. DiorandI (talk)

Goldgenie page

Hi @K.e.coffman: as I am sure you are aware from my talk page I created draft:goldgenie under full COI disclosure in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You deleted the draft because you believed it was "unambiguous advertising". I created the draft by going over everything that had been written about the topic in independent, reliable sources and aggregating that information into an encyclopaedia entry. Could you please specify which parts of the draft you believe were an advertisement? So I can re-create the draft without the offending sentences. Thanks Turtle neck ninja (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Turtle neck ninja: Whether a page meets WP:G11 criterion for speedy deletion is not dependent on who the author of the page is and whether there's a COI. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @K.e.coffman: I am aware of the criteria for WP:G11 but thank you for reiterating it to me. My question was, which parts of the draft did you deem to be an advertisment? I am happy to recreate the draft without anything you would deem to be an advert. Also, you mentioned you deleted the page because you believed it was an advert, does this mean that you believe the topic is notable, you just thought the prose were too advertorial? I would be interested to hear your comments on this. Kind regards, Turtle neck ninja (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Turtle neck ninja: I would not suggest recreating the draft. Beyond promotionalism, it's a non-viable draft that does not meet WP:NCORP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: I didn't ask you if the draft met WP:NCORP I asked you if the topic met WP:NCORP as you can see from the references the topic has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, independent from the topic. Does the topic meet WP:NCORP? Turtle neck ninja (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Turtle neck ninja: No, in my opinion, the topic does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman:I would be interested to hear how you came to this conclusion as the topic has received significant converage in reliable independent sources which include the BBC. This source here was used to support the notability of the topic. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dragonsden/entrepreneurs/labanroomes.shtml Turtle neck ninja (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Kamenev Rollback

Hi, noticed you undid my edit. What does 'non-defining' mean in your edit note? For the record Kamenev had a Jewish father ^[1] Not sure what 'non-defining' could be referring to in this context. For instance, if I decided to identify as non-Russian, that wouldn't actually make me a non-Russian given that one of my parents was Russian.

I look forward to your clarification. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TorontonianOnlines: It seems that you are unduly preoccupied with "Jewishness"; it's a bit creepy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does not address my question whatsoever. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lindemann, Albert S. Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. Cambridge University Press. p. 430. ISBN 0-521-79538-9.

You have neither responded to me nor addressed my points and have furthermore proceeded to delete further biographical information off the same page. I don’t wish to edit war so can you please respond here. Thanks. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's apparently more; pls see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:TorontonianOnlines. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion here: #User:TorontonianOnlines. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 16 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]

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]

Thank you ...

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

@Gerda Arendt: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 26 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]

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:

Wikipedia has approved single pages for these self storage REITs, provided here in the order of Inside Self Storage's 2018 rankings by size: (1) Public Storage, (2) Extra Space Storage, (3) Life Storage, (4) CubeSmart, (6) U-Haul International, (7) StorageMart, (11) W.P. Carey, (12) Simply Self Storage, (13) National Storage REIT, (16) World Class Holdings, (37) The Lock Up Self Storage, among others. Many Wikipedia editors have deemed individual self storage REITs to be sufficiently notable. National Storage Affiliates Trust was ranked #5 on this list, and is the only one in the top without a Wikipedia page.

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]

Draft:Cervecería Dos Aves

Hi!! Hope you are well. I wrote the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cervecer%C3%ADa_Dos_Aves 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baja_Brewing_Company I'm not sure what more I can do. Please advise. Thanks!! Fkameko (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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]

Thank you very much for the GA review. It was professional and effective.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Operation 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]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]