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

Draft:Global Wireless Solutions
Hi,

I submitted the draft for the Global Wireless Solutions wikipedia page, and have seen your comments. Before the Global Wireless Solutions Wikipedia page was taken down, I was working to make it an entirely encyclopedic page void of any advertising language. In this draft for the page, I worked more to remove any promotional wording or content and make it completely encyclopedic. I would greatly appreciate any feedback as to where specifically the draft can be improved. As I said, my aim is to remove all advertising language and have the page meet the Wikipedia standards.

In regards to your second point about the significance of the subject - Global Wireless Solutions has been widely regarded as the leading benchmarker in the telecommunications industry. Global Wireless Solutions is the oldest and largest wireless network benchmarking firm and has been covered hundreds, if not thousands, of times in press articles. Other firms in the industry, with far less press coverage, have Wikipedia pages (e.g. RootMetrics, OpenSignal)). How can this point be resolved appropriately in a new draft? Would more sources/footnotes suffice?

Thank you, Scwiki3 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is strongly promotional and resembles a sales brochure, especially the section: Draft:Global Wireless Solutions. Beyond that, the company is not yet notable: the sources are directory listings, in passing, routine notices and / or self-promotional. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Panzer Aces (book series)
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editor of the article Panzer Aces (book series) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...
... for article quality improvements in October! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Atayants, Maxim
Hi, Could you explain me more detailed why this page declined and advise me what shall I do to improve it? What part of article seems like advertising? What part needs more references? Лев Усыскин (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article reads like it could be the subject's own website that he would use to promote his portfolio. It's too long and filled with extraneous detail, resulting in a promotional page. Some sections are completely unreferenced such as Draft:Atayants,_Maxim.
 * Same for Draft:Atayants,_Maxim (which I think should be "Awards") -- just pick a couple of the more important ones and remove the rest. The exhaustive listing of various exhibitions is not needed; again, pick a few that secondary coverage exists for, and focus on that. Etc. The article could probably be reduced by 75 per cent and be better for it. Separately, are you affiliated with the subject in any way? --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. K.e.coffman. Thanks for assistance – I'll try to mend the article according your advice. (The article reads like it could be the subject's own website) – It sounds nice because subject still have no own website, but anyway I understand your criticism. (Separately, are you affiliated with the subject in any way?) I am not a relative, partner or employee of the subject, but I know him personally – I am a journalist and made some interview with him and so on. It was my idea to mend his article in Ru-Wiki as well as create the same articles in En-Wiki, It-Wiki and Armenian Wiki. And I do convinced him to register his own account on Wiki to easy upload his own pictures. I have some reasons to regard his person rather important to have his own en-wiki page. First of all, he is a prominent or may be central figure in the discussion (or fierce competition) between modernistic and neoclassical architects in Russia. It is a world process, world discussion but “Russian wing” of it takes subject in it's focus. Hi is a main speaker, ideologist, main target of criticism, hero of professional scandals end so on on behalf of neoclassical minority. From the other hand – he is a famous person in the international community of neoclassical architects and got some international rewards like 2018 International Urban Design Award or 2016 Premio Europeo Cap Circeo. Formally, the subject is an acknowledged present-day Russian architect: he is awarded with honorary title of Merited Architect of Russia according the proper decree of Russian President etc. Also he is one of  sponsors of Nagorno-Karabakh – a disputed area between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I think it could be interesting for different type of public. At least it is important for all English-reading people of Armenian descent. I can give some ext. links for this part of article, but it will be links to Armenian-speaking media. Is it correct? Лев Усыскин (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Лев Усыскин: Yes, it is perfectly acceptable to use foreign-language sources in an article, and they may be used for demonstrating notability per WP:GNG. Catrìona (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I made some amendments. Could you check is it OK? As for 2.1 Graphics -- I am going to illustrate it by 1 or 2 subject's pictures just after permissions sent by him will be accepted. Shell I resubmit it now or after you write your opinion? Лев Усыскин (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Лев Усыскин Please read Wikipedia's biography of living people policy: the article needs many more inline citations to fulfill policy. Also, are you affiliated with the subject in any way? Catrìona (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

On affiliation I wrote above. Now I add some inline citations and kindly ask you to point me by finger where article needs more. By now: &Biography 1st paragraph – supported by 1 ref. 2nd paragraph – supported by 2 ref 3d paragraph – supported by 1 ref 4 – no ref, sorry – but to the certain extent it being proved by pictures which are now waiting acceptance of permission 5 – 1 ref &Graphics no ref, sorry. But uploaded proper pictures are waiting acceptance of permission &Selected projects All 3 statements supported by ref &Urbanism All 2 statements supported by ref &Restoration & Renovation Statement supported by ref &Selected Architectural Competitions Statement supported by ref &Educator No refs, sorry. &Exhibitions All 5 statements supported by ref $Awards All statements supported by ref &Recovery of the village of Karaglukh supported by 5 ref May be it's enough to accept the article?Лев Усыскин (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Elena Nikitina (author)
Hello K.e.coffman,

I hope you're well. I just noticed your rejection of Elena Nikitina (author).

I thought I'd ask for a re-consideration on your part. In the rejection, there was the following text:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia

I'm requesting that you re-consider your decision (hopefully without a months long re-submission process), based on the fact that Elena Nikitina is the lead story on this week's radio documentary programme Outlook, from the BBC World Service. As you are likely aware, the BBC World Service is probably the premiere news organization in the world, with hundreds of millions of listeners each week. That they chose to cover the life of Elena Nikitina as part of their flagship programme Outlook, and further, as the lead story, certainly seems to confirm the notability of the subject. There would be few, if any, more reliable secondary sources than the BBC World Service. And being the subject of a BBC World Service radio documentary is well more than a passing mention.

Nikitina has also been covered by numerous news magazines in Britain and the US, as well as newspapers and TV shows in her home state of Ohio, as indicated in the original article. She has also previously appeared on Ohio Public Radio and Radio America. My skill in putting these sources together is not ideal. But I will put links to the BBC World Service show below:

This is the 18 minute segment itself.

This demonstrates it as the lead segment on this week's 53 minute show.

Actually, I was able to track down the Ohio Public Radio and Radio America segments. It wasn't even that hard. Both are stories about Nikitina from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The Radio America segment also appears to include a printed transcript of the interview, or maybe it is just a companion article.

Here is the Radio America segment.

And here is the Ohio Public Radio segment.

I have no idea when this message will reach you, but I look forward to your response.

Thanks very much for your time.

Good-otto (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC) Good-Otto
 * Typically, interviews are not considered an independent source. It seems like this person may well be notable, but you will need to find and cite more independent sources in the article for it to be accepted. Catrìona (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good-Otto - see and read: WP:RS and WP:V. Kierzek (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The book is self-published, so the subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR, while interviews are not sufficient for notability. You can ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi guys,

Okay. Thank you. I will dig into these links as soon as I can, so that I can understand the policies you describe better.

Best,

Good-otto (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Lidia Vianu
Hello,

In the article Draft:Lidia Vianu you declined the submission by comment: "The article is creation protected due to repeated recreation." The article was originally created (in 2010? 2005?) by the subject, then recreated by the subject's daughter, then repeatedly recreated by the subject's students, none of whom had any experience on Wikipedia, and believing that the article could be a Europass CV that does not need sources. Of course, it has been deleted many times. The few sources cited at the initial creation were very poor, but now (2018) the subject's activity is much better reflected in media. The article is much better referenced as in previous cases.

Knowing the situation of previous deletions, I asked how to proceed. According to your resolution, we will never be able to create this article because it was repeatedly deleted. What you propose that this article can be created, because the subject is a notable person, is one of James Joyce's scholars, who have pages about them. Thank you. --Turbojet (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would reach out to the administrator who protected the page; you can do it on their Talk page here: User talk:ReaderofthePack. You can see a full list of administrators who interacted with the page by clicking on the red link: Lidia Vianu. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Turbojet (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Iyad Hajjaj
Hello K.e.Coffman, Thank you for reviewing my articles and leaving a comment on it, also thank you for the education/links you submitted, definitely, I will read it all. but I think, you took me wrong! I write about people I may know but of course, they are not my friends, family or hired me to write about them! I just work on the materials from my own side without any connections with them, I write here in a way like a Journal Press work, I call his office I ask his manager to provide me with information about him and I contact his friends or his family (I don't know them too), I check here and there to build at the end an enough references and sources to write a good article! without any real connection, maybe I met the person once or twice in general events but definitely, I am not hired by him to write an article about him. It's just a project from scratch! my interest all about to have a nice article about someone who lives in the same country and same state! I spent a long time doing this work, trying to practice journalism on Wikipedia English + Nobody wrote anything about him (Iyad Hajjaj) while I can help Wikipedia by providing some info I know about this man who won several awards in the film industry! please advise me what to do to take this article out of deletion! Thank you again for making Wikipedia a great clear accredited source.

Oshotoxx (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * while your dedication to tracking down information on your subjects is admirable, I think you may be misunderstanding a key Wikipedia policy, which is verifiability. Coverage on Wikipedia must be based on the person's coverage in reliable sources, not your own investigations. In addition, we will not have an article on anyone who is not notable. Catrìona (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: Hi Catronia, Thank you for stopping here to help me with my article, I really appreciate your helpful tips and advice! However, I believe that I added enough reliable sources rather than my "my own investigations". I have so many reliable sources + Iyad Hajjaj he is a notable person, try to google his name and see it by yourself! I am really so open for any changes in my article to be verified by Wikipedia! advice, please. Thank you.Oshotoxx (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ben O'Brien, Physician
Dear Mr Coffman Many thanks for your efforts curating Wikipedia content. I recently submitted content for a new entry on a colleagues of mine, who I firmly believe to merit such recognition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ben_O%27Brien,_Physician

Some years ago, someone (and I am actually not quite sure who!) created a wikipedia page on me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Montgomery_(physician)

Professor O'Brien contacted me to point out some inaccuracies on my page, which have now been corrected. I want to create an entry on Prof O'Brien which is factually accurate. I have contacted him to gain access to some source material, including a photograph, which he shared and signed the release for.

I would be very grateful for some guidance by an experienced Wikipedia curator and editor as to how I can improve the draft entry so that it might be accepted for publication.

With thanks and best wishes! H.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montgomery007 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia discourages the creation of articles on one's colleagues or friends. Please see a note on your Talk page User_talk:Montgomery007. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panzer Aces (book series)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Panzer Aces (book series) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:HBUS
Greetings K.e.coffman, I have been editing cryptocurrency exchanges' info to add the NY Attorney General report on virtual markets and also get more practice being a Wiki editor. I noticed that the HBUS page was rejected and not public. I have significantly altered the content by removing promotional information, adding the Attorney General Report that notes HBUS, and also references a major publication (Forbes). If you have additional information on how to improve the article, I would appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seedan (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article appears to only exist to promote the business in question. Beyond that, the company is not yet notable: the sources are in passing, routine notices and / or self-promotional, such as Forbes.com/sites/. Also, if you have a conflict-of-interest in re: this subject, please declare it on your user page. Please see the message on your Talk page: User talk:Seedan.
 * You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panzer Aces (book series)
The article Panzer Aces (book series) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Panzer Aces (book series) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you help with a better wording?
For the heaven/hell etc. hook? I proposed an alt at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know but the discussion got derailed. I'd like to get it on track and discuss what hook would be seen as properly neutral for the article. Can you help? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the timing is right, as I see that there's an RM going on for the page, as well as some neutrality concerns posted on the Talk page. It may be better to let things settle first. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Craig_Proctor
Thank you for reviewing my proposed page on Craig Proctor. You have deleted the page, marking it as unambiguous advertising. When I wrote this page, I researched to understand Wikipedia guidelines and to write the page objectively. My goal was to present only factual information that I could back up with acceptable third party sources. As a specific guideline, I paralleled the format of another Wikipedia page for an individual in the same field (i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ferry). There are many similarities between Craig Proctor and Tom Ferry both in terms of the work they do and their international presence, so I felt this would be a relevant page to parallel. I do know Craig Proctor but I am not being paid by him to generate his page, and I have nothing personally or financially to gain from its creation. I would like to revise the page so it passes Wikipedia standards but it is not clear to me which part of my deleted entry is considered advertising/promotion and would appreciate your help in highlighting which statements are problematic. Thank you in advance for your guidance.ProducerSMS (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * the draft was deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Also, if you have a conflict-of-interest in re: this subject, please declare it on your user page. Please see the message on your Talk page: User talk:ProducerSMS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I do understand that you deleted the draft as you felt it was unambiguous advertising or promotion, but I would like to understand how the Craig Proctor draft page is any different from the published page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ferry which is a page on an individual in the same field as Craig Proctor. Why is this page authorized and not the Craig Proctor page. If there are subtle differences that are significant enough to cause acceptance of one and rejection of the other, it would be helpful if you would let me know what phrases are problematic so I can revise them. I don't believe there is anything in the Craig Proctor page write up that is promoting him - all the information is fact and I ensured I had objective, Wiki-acceptable citations for the facts. Thank you in advance for your guidance. ProducerSMS (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello K.e.coffman - Thank you for your reply. I do understand that you deleted the draft as you felt it was unambiguous advertising or promotion, but I would like to understand how the Craig Proctor draft page is any different from the published page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ferry which is a page on an individual in the same field as Craig Proctor. Why is this page authorized and not the Craig Proctor page. If there are subtle differences that are significant enough to cause acceptance of one and rejection of the other, it would be helpful if you would let me know what phrases are problematic so I can revise them. I don't believe there is anything in the Craig Proctor page write up that is promoting him - all the information is fact and I ensured I had objective, Wiki-acceptable citations for the facts. Thank you in advance for your guidance. ProducerSMS (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see the message on your Talk page: User talk:ProducerSMS. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wasn't understanding correctly where I needed to put this since the Draft:Craig_Proctor page was deleted. I hope I have correctly put the disclosures on my own userpage. I'm not certain I have correctly put "yes" with respect to U1-declared under the connected contributor section I put on my user page. I do know Craig Proctor, but I am not related to him or friends with him and I am not being paid in anyway to generate the page on him. Would you let me know if I've done this correctly and what next steps I should be taking toward potential publication of the Draft:Craig_Proctor page? Thank you for your time.ProducerSMS (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's usually not helpful to argue for notability of one subject based on another article, as sometimes that article isn't terribly notable either. If the subject is truely notable, then a non-involved volunteer would create an article at some point. I see that Draft:Craig Proctor was already deleted twice, as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". In addition, the subject did not strike me as notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If the article I compared it to is not notable, I'm wondering how it came to be published or whether it should be published under the guidelines you've explained. The subjects and articles are quite parallel. I understand rules and guidelines must exist to safeguard the integrity of Wikipedia, but I would think those rules and guidelines should, therefore, be universally applied. Can you recommend any other next steps?ProducerSMS (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the other article is on a non-notable subject, you can nominate it for deletion. Please see here for instructions: Articles for deletion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your time and am not trying to abuse it. I understand your role and how important it is that wikipedia exercises integrity. The reason I felt Craig Proctor was notable is that as a local businessman in our community, he has impacted the lives of so many others across North America. Obviously this isn't the kind of statement that would go into a wikipedia article, but I wanted to explain why I felt he was worthy of note. By sharing the real estate business system he created for his own business, he's elevated the lives of literally thousands of others. He has a business membership of agents he mentors of thousands and many students have been with him for a decade or two because the value is ongoing. I haven't mentioned this on the draft page because that would be promotional and the proof for this would be from the people he's helped and thus not citable sources. Craig Proctor has made a notable impact on the North American real estate industry and it was this that drove me to write the entry.ProducerSMS (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see Autobiography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Anina Pinter
Thank you for reviewing my first wikipedia article submission, I understand why it was not approved based on notability concerns, but I want to point to a reference that you may not have seen which contains a 15 page article and interview with Anina Pinter.

The link I gave did not specify the exact page number, which didn’t help. Here it is again with page number: https://issuu.com/mzsk.hu/docs/szemle15_2_netre/75 Possibly also this is because the magazine I linked to, Szemle, is in Hungarian! But I think if you look at the publication, you can see that it is an independent, long running Hungarian culture and arts magazine. (Here is its list of quarterly publication by year http://www.mzsk.hu/szemle/ ) And you can see that the article is about only Pinter, with photos and interview.

In cases like this (where a costume designer has broken through to Hollywood work from another country where they are better known) it can be hard to find English language articles to show notability, but hopefully in context with other sources of information, you can see that this is a case where notability is shown in a foreign language, which I believe wikipedia’s criteria allows for.

If I correct the link in the article so that it directs you to the page of the article / Interview, would you be ready to reconsider the approval? I know the article needs more work and references, which I can continue to do. Thanks for your help. 67.201.9.50 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 67.201.9.50: it does not matter per WP:gng what language the sources are in. However, an interview does not count as a independent source. Catrìona (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Catrìona - I described it as an Article/Interview, but it is better described as an article where the writer has interviewed the subject and quotes her over some of the pages. Other pages are about her background, her move to Hollywood, etc. So, am i correct in thinking that if the source is third-party, secondary source but with quotations of the primary source, then it is an independent source because it has no vested interest in the subject? 67.201.9.50 (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 67.201.9.50: Well, I cannot read Hungarian, but if the piece includes multiple paragraphs/pages of coverage focusing on the subject written by the journalist than it does count as significant coverage in an independent publication for Wikipedia purposes. Good luck with the article! Catrìona (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on Catrìona's appraisal above, would you be willing to take another look at notability, based on the article, if I can update with the exact page of the article? Or do we need a Hungarian reader? Thanks 67.201.9.50 (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You can improve the article and then resubmit. Please also see User_talk:67.201.9.50. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree it needs general other improvements as well.. I will attempt some but.. I was hoping to start the page and then let others who know more or have non-hungarian links contribute the rest. I don't know that much about Anina other than I grew up in her home town and saw her at the oscars this year. No wikipedia page so I wanted to try creating a page, but understand conflicts of interest are probably rife 67.201.9.50 (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: I was hoping to start the page and then let others who know more (...) contribute the rest, it usually does not happen this way. If notability is not shown in the article, it's likely to not be approved or could be possibly deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your oversight and input... Well, on analysis it seems that many if not most WP pages are originally created with less information than they eventually have, once other sources have contributed. But with regards to the importance of demonstrating notability, that is why I included from my very first submission a reference to a 15 page article that is just about the person in question. It would seem that the referred article was not considered before this WP page submission was declined, probably because it is not in the English language! While that is a relatively slim amount of information to start an article with, are you saying that the article I linked to, in concert with the other links that show this person has contributed to several notable films, is not enough to confer notability? As I am learning, I am ready to be corrected, but from WP's guide on notability for people, it seems that if one can combine an in-depth article such as that in Szemle with the various less substantial references that establish the films this person has worked on, notability can be seen as having been shown. I would love to find more sources of information to create a more useful and well-referenced article, however, so I am reaching out to those who may be able to help. 67.201.9.50 (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the article has been sufficiently improved, you can resubmit it for review. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did find a couple more references and biog information, added page numbers for the key article about subject... nb, for following references in Hungarian, names are often written back to front rather than forename, surname..! I've also added article requests for two relevant items, the Nat Geo series Year Million and Field Guide to Evil. 67.201.9.50 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi, I'm on the fence about a draft. Draft:Ben_Bloom_(Journalist). While he seems notable, I fear that there is too much negativty in the article to accept. Do you think I should accept anyway and leave the stuff in the draft per WP:NOTCENSORED ?? Or decline and ask the author to make it more neutral?? Thanks JC7V -talk  19:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would decline due to insufficient notability. The controversies are minor, while there's not enough depth of sources to write an NPOV biography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask a favor?
Can you watchlist Naliboki massacre and Koniuchy massacre, which are periodically hit by a POV pusher trying to source information to sources that don't support the information plus trying to push a narrative that is verging on anti-semitic? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do. I've also requested ECP for both articles here: Requests for page protection. Please feel free to chime in there. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Roman Töppel on Franz Kurowski
The paper by Roman Töppel on Franz Kurowski has recently been published. . I thought you might want to take a look. There is an abstract in English. Let me know if you need further help with the language. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is also posted to the online portal of the Military History Working Group, so I was able to read with with the help of Google translate: The whole war as an adventure: The writer and "historian" Franz Kurowski.
 * It was interesting to see Töppel's comment on how Kurowski's tales made it into even serious literature in the English language, such as "Dennis E. Showalter, Armor and Blood. The Battle of Kursk, New York 2013, p. 188, 203, 208f". I read this book, and, while it was generally pretty good, I recall wondering where the "up-close-and-personal" bits were coming from. They sounded a touch Über-Soldat to me. Now I know :). --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Turns out that I already included Töppel in the Panzer Aces (book series) page -- his paper appears to be based on the materials he presented at the So war der deutsche Landser event:
 * I've learned about the conference while developing the article on Jens Westemeier. Interesting how things are interconnected. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've learned about the conference while developing the article on Jens Westemeier. Interesting how things are interconnected. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

OurPath
Hi there -

I'd like to either contest the deletion of Draft:OurPath or retrieve the deleted material.

Thank you! Sdfish78 (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdfish78 Your draft was speedily deleted for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". This means that the deleting administrator thought that the material had no potential to become a Wikipedia article. Your best bet is to confirm that the subject is notable and write an article that is neutral. However, if you would like to contest the deletion, Deletion review is the correct forum. Catrìona (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - is it possible to retrieve the deleted material in the first instance? Sdfish78 (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The only way to do that is through deletion review; you would have to show that the deletion of the article under the speedy criteria was not appropriate. Catrìona (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok - thank you. I have submitted a deletion review :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdfish78 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Heart to Heart Counseling Center
Can you please re-review my article on Heart to Heart Counseling Center? I was basing the information off of the content which was listed on their company website. I have since removed all of the "promotional" content (pretty much everything about their products and services) and left only the history of the counseling center and Doug Weiss. I feel like this article is necessary to the completion of Wikipedia because Doug Weiss already has a wiki page, so this page would complete his bio about where he works. Please let me know, and thank you for your time K.e.coffman. JoIIygreen (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I do not plan to re-review this draft, as I don't consider the topic to be suitable for inclusion due to promotionalism and lack of notability. Please also see:
 * User talk:JoIIygreen.
 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
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) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Doug Imbruce
The editor nominating this article for deletion cannot justify that this article refers to a person who is not notable. The individual clearly obtained many press mentions over a lengthy period of time, as demonstrated in the RS, including three mentions as "Highest in class" awards - as the winner of TechCrunch Disrupt, and being named on "Top 100" lists by Business Insider over a number of years - for achievements on opposite coasts. The article also clearly states the individual is currently active as an investor, with investments current as of 2018, including many best in class companies (IE, "Uber"). With so many RS, the deletion of this article (which has existed since 2010) is puzzling. The page has also been updated to properly reflect industry awards and more, with additional RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.109.165 (talk • contribs)
 * Please see Articles for deletion/Doug Imbruce. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Iran 2025 Horizon Vision
please i'm making my own new wiki after 3 months an admin comes up with this reason i couldn't write this page less advertising this is an important article i won't edit and resubmit if no one else can write Baratiiman (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I declined the draft because it reads like a government press release, while notability of the subject is unclear. I don't read Arabic, so I cannot be of help. You can reach out to WikiProject Iran here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran, to see if the editors there can assist. Please include the link to the draft ([[Draft:Iran 2025 Horizon Vision]]). --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Potentially problematic sources
Are Lexikon-der-wehrmacht and ww2.dk legit and good for use? They seem OK content-wise, but I think they fail WP:SPS. ww2.dk in particular is important to me because it's used in Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II), so I used it in Jagdgeschwader 52. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  07:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC) OP (Vami) here. I started this section to ask about Lexikon-der-wehrmacht and ww2.dk but later expanded it to talk about the new title, potentially bad sources. –Vami
 * I would agree that they are not RS and I would fail a GA review if the nominator used them. Even if the content is accurate, that doesn't make the source reliable. I'm surprised a site like that would have information that you can't find elsewhere, for instance in German-language books. Catrìona (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not use either of these sources, being apparently user-generated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not use either sources you mention above, either. Kierzek (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

New quandary. I've come to acquire a bazillion pdfs of Gordon Williamson books (which I used at List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients, before getting all these Osprey-published books), so I did a background check. Alarms started sounding in my head when I read his bio here on en.wikipedia and them came to full crescendo once I saw the foreward to his book on the Iron Cross was written by an officer of the 1st Waffen-SS Leibstandarte. I've seen your take (and S.P. Mackenzie's, also courtesy of your userpage) in brief, but do you think he could be used if stacked with a more critical source? – ♠Vami _IV†♠  17:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As for Williamson, he is not an RS source in my opinion, but others would say he is okay to use for general information, such as unit names and dates of service and awards obtained. I do not use him, myself. Osprey does publish some good RS works, such as by Steven Zaloga. But, as K.e. would say, they are a "mixed bag". Kierzek (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Ospreys vary tremendously in quality and reliability, depending on their author. Generally, I wouldn't rely on one as the most-used source for an article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But, yes, he's probably reliable for strictly factual material like dates, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would not use Williamson. Much of what he writes about can probably be found elsewhere, in much better sources. If he's the only author covering a particular detail, then it's likely trivial and not necessary for inclusion. He's sort of like an English-language Franz Kurowski: lots of heroics, based on war-time propaganda; not enough encyclopedic relevance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
Coretheapple submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * It is my great pleasure to nominate K.e.coffman to be Editor of the Week for his superlative contributions to military history. Offhand I can't think of an editor who has had a more significant impact on the project's content. He has worked tirelessly to remove neo-Nazi apologia from the project in multiple articles and is the editor most largely responsible for tackling the Clean Wehrmacht myth to the extent that it has impacted on articles. Note this essay in which he cogently outlined the problem and how to deal with it. The only thing that held me back from nominating him earlier was an arbitration proceeding involving these issues that was recently concluded.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   00:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thoroughly deserved. Well done K.e! Simon Adler (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * K.e., I hope you're aware of the special rule applying to those who are designated editor of the week during the ArbCom elections? They have to offer themselves as candidates in the election. You'd better get cracking with your stump speech (=candidate statement) and be ready to submit it here before 23:59 UTC on 13 November 2018.  Bishonen &#124; talk 01:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC).
 * ha ha, very clever :). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, this is indeed well deserved! Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * A pleasure to have nominated you for this and a shock that it hadn't been done already. Fine work. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations, Herr Coffman! – ♠Vami _IV†♠  20:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you very much for the nomination; I'm honoured. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for the well-wishes; I appreciate it. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Chuck Easttom
I found the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chuck_Easttom and your comments. I tried to do some cleanup. I think this person is at least minimally notable. I found (and added citations) that his is a) a Distinguished Speaker of the ACM, and according to Wikipedia, there are only 125 of those, that would seem to be notable enough. However, I also added dozens of citations from CNN, CBS, various universities, major conferences, etc. Not to mention, when I searched Wikipedia for the subject I found 8 articles referencing him.  In my opinion that is adequate notability. However, I have put in all the time I can on this one, and hope others will take it from here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.211.175.29 (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This still reads like a promotional autobiography. Please review Conflict of interest and Autobiography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Well it is not an autobio to start with, check my IP address, I am in Saudi Arabia. I am not the subject. And I did not start the article. I just found it. It happens I used this subjects textbook in a graduate school class and was searching for the author and found the draft page and decided to pitch in. And it reads like a factual overview of an academic. For a model I used other Wiki articles on academics such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stallings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Aaronson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dourish

Like those, this article lists the subjects accomplishments in neutral language. The primary differences this article has no biographical background (where the subject was born, etc.) because I don't know it and cannot find a source. The wording is almost identical to other Wikipedia academic biographies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.211.175.29 (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the article has been sufficiently improved, you can resubmit it for review. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I did, however you have already indicated you will reject it. And you have not told me why. I could correct the article if you would be specific as to what is wrong. You say 'it reads like a promotional autobiography' but don't point to any specifics. Are there 'puffery words'? How does it differ from other academic biographies? Do you simply feel the subject is not notable? What exactly is it in the article that needs to be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.211.175.29 (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not plan to re-review the article. It's back in the queue and it will eventually be reviewed by another editor. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

OK I did not know that. But if you would, I would appreciate if you would tell me what specifically is wrong with it so I can fix it. The same questions I asked above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.211.175.29 (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Jon Michael Varese
Thank you for the review K.e.coffman. I've followed your suggestions and: Please let me know if there is anything else you need me to do. Thanks, Alexander Moviemaker325 (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed all "peacock" text from the article submission
 * Added "Critical Reception" section from The Spirit Photographer article to the main article
 * Disclosed COI on my User page. (I am the subject's third cousin.)
 * If you feel that the article has been sufficiently improved, you can resubmit it for review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks All of your suggestions have been incorporated and I've resubmitted the article, which now shows a resubmitted status. Let me know if there's anything else you need me to do. You can also delete The Spirit Photographer draft if you like, as I incorporated the relevant Critical Reception information into the body of the author article. (Unless you think we should keep it, in the event that the book eventually warrants its own page?) Thanks. Moviemaker325 (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Animasia Studio Review Rejection
Hi K.e.coffman,

I understand that the page Animasia Studio has been rejected. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind it and ways I can improve. I now see that most of the article has information on the shows making it seem like a company flyer. Will deleting that part of the article make it better?

I know that the company has produced and created shows viewed worldwide and on an international scale for TV and online so I believe it is notable enough for an article. Is there any other help you can give me? Thanks a lot. YusufAnimasia (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not plan to re-review this draft, as I don't consider the topic to be suitable for inclusion due to promotionalism and lack of notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Anindya Bikas Datta
Thanks for reviewing my article on director Anindya Bikas Datta. Can you please help me understand why this article was rejected? My sources are mostly national newspapers from India. Do you want me to be more "to the point" in the descriptions? For examples avoid superlatives like "huge success" and quotes (these were however directly drawn from the newspaper articles). Other than that it is fully factual. Except for one part in personal info where it was mentioned that he "loves to travel", in context of his mountaneering degree. Please advise. Thank you.Incorrigible man (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incorrigible man (talk • contribs) 10:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * the article reads like a laudatory portraial and also includes unnecessary personal details. Just keep it focused on his accomplishments. Please also see: User_talk:Incorrigible_man. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Resubmitted with suggested modifications.Thanks.Incorrigible man (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Babylon.js
I understand that you moved the article back into draft space because it was put into mainspace by a banned user and that it is promotional. Would you please provide the evidence you used in determining that the article is promotional.JohnK3142 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC).
 * I see that Babylon.js had been previously deleted for lack of notability. Sections such as Draft:Babylon.js are stronly suggestive of a sales brochure. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Iran's 2018 lawsuit at ICJ against United States
Hey, Can you address the recent developments of Template:Did you know nominations/Iran's 2018 lawsuit at ICJ against United States, please? Regards. -- M h hossein   talk 13:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for the follow-up. I commented on the nomination. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you K.e.coffman. I acted based on your comment and am waiting for your verification of the ALT3 by the green check mark, if it's OK. -- M h hossein   talk 16:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Formatting refs in Harv..Would you do me a kindness?

 * Hi K.e hope all's good! I found a nice little quote from David Reynolds in his excellent The Long Shadow from hitler about the term Blitzkreig. I have added it to the article but I am afraid I use the standard template cite system, so it is not aligned with the ref harv ref. system used in the article. I think it is a useful quote to de-mythologise the term, and adds weight to the concept of the lazy usage that historians, even good ones, have used the term in the past, which the article already covers. A quote from der fuhrer debunking it I think is useful. Would you be be kind enough to go over and put it in harv cite format, when you have a moment? I would be most grateful. I must learn how to format refs in that way. Regards, Simon. Simon Adler (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is done. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  06:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for the quick action; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Felix Römer
Vanamonde (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Elaine Alexander Draft
Hello k.e.coffman,

You recently declined an article I wrote about Elaine Alexander. You declined it under the assumption that it was an autobiography and that it cited sources written by Elaine.

True, Elaine wrote one of the sources. It is a book that she wrote. It is not about her or her career. It is about the criminal justice system.

Furthermore, Ms. Alexander did not write this Wikipedia article. My name is Noah Gaarder-Feingold, and I wrote the article. Feel free to find me on Facebook or Instagram (@bigznoahkai). I wrote the article because Ms. Alexander is a successful, intelligent, important woman. I am a law student and learned of her just recently. Her husband is a professor of mine. Discussions I had with him were the basis for the majority of this article. I tried to find outside sources that helped, but she is not very active online. But do see the cites to the Appellate Defenders. Those demonstrate her importance.

I ask you to please reconsider this article. It is honest, important, and certainly worthy of Wikipedia. Sincerely, Noah Gaarder-Feingold Ngaarderfeingold (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It does sound like you have a conflict of interest; please see WP:COI. Wikipedia articles are generally not based on interviews with the subjects' spouses. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Question
Hi, do you think this draft: Draft:Alice Kimball Smith should be moved to mainspace? I'm sort on the fence with it. I didn't start the draft but I've expanded it and I don't want to move it will be deleted. Thanks. JC7V (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would accept this draft. The article looks acceptable, while the subject is notable under WP:NAUTHOR. For authors, I usually check Worldcat.org/identities. Smith has very high library holdings as can be seen here: . --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Taras Kostanchuk
Good day! Earlier today, you rejected an article about Taras Kostanchuk (commander of the assault group of the Donbas Battalion). The reason you indicated my friendly or family ties or advertising is not a significant person, but this is not so. He led the assault group of the famous battalion and went through many battles (in the material I applied it was fixed, even video materials). One of the few who survived the Battle of Ilovaisk. I enclose a photo of the planning of the capture of Ilovaysk, where Taras Kostanchuk discusses it with the famous founder of the battalion, Semen Semenchenko. Now Taras Kostanchuk is engaged in many projects in Ukraine and there are a lot of queries about search systems about him (you can check). In Ukrainian Wikipedia, I have already successfully created and approved an article about Taras Kostanchuk (you can easily check this). This man deserves a place in the encyclopedia and I would like to be the creator of his page until someone else did. This article does not carry any advertising character. Taras Kostanchuk does not need it. His biography is already searched in search queries, so I’m creating this page. I beg you to reconsider your decision. Thank you. Best regards, Pa30T (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article reads like a hagiography, while the notability is questionable. It's still unclear if you have a connection to the subject, or to the Donbass Battalion, since you did not comment on that directly. Please see: User_talk:Pa30T. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interests on the page is impossible. I am not personally acquainted with Taras Kostanchuk (commander of the assault group of the Donbas Battalion), was never part of the Donbas Battalion. Taras Kostanchuk is a war hero and now even make a film about him (as he survived in the Battle of Ilovaisk). Now he is active in supporting the military and a lot of many other public projects. I could attach a large number of links mentioning him, but it will be easier for you to register his name on the search engine. You will see that people are looking for his biography. This is the reason to have a full-fledged biography in one place, so I create this page. I hope you check this information and change your opinion. Best regards, Pa30T (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not plan to change my opinion about this draft. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I will definitely ask for a change of decision. Perhaps you do not know about the war in Ukraine and about key persons, so it’s difficult for you to understand the significance of this person. I will look for administrators who know about the war in Ukraine. Thanks for the help. Best regards, Pa30T (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Aeris Naviter
Thank you for taking the time to review Draft:Aeris Naviter. It was not a puff piece for the company. I know none of the principals and the company is defunct. Why puff it? But I do agree that its notability was marginal, so I am concurring in its deletion. Anobium625 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Anobium625 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * in general, if the article on the product already exists, the information on the (marginally notable) company can be merged into the article on its product. The same principle applies to authors. If they have written one notable book, you can create an article either on the book or on the author, but not both. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Hitman Blues Band
Thanks for the review. I'm confused - the rejection said:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

There WAS a range of independent, reliable, published sources. For example, they were on the front cover of Blues In Britain and had an accompanying article, had numerous reviews over the years in magazines and newspapers from all over the world, and toured all over the UK and Europe. I provided references. There are plenty of other reviews, but unfortunately many are not web accessible without a subscription. I don't understand how you can say what you did about it being "materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed" - I didn't write those articles!

Rather than being "an advertisement", which would have used superlatives to describe the band, I just stuck to their history and accomplishments. No, they aren't U2 or Led Zeppelin. But they are a recognized Modern Blues band that has gotten steady, significant airplay on blues stations all over the world and have a reasonably large following. If they don't meet the required level of success, despite the luminaries who have recorded the albums, that's one thing. But to say I didn't provide a neutral point of view, or didn't provide independent, reliable, published sources - I must be missing something in what's required.

I would appreciate help in getting this to pass muster. Thanks again for your time and voluntary work. Savearainbow (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * please see User_talk:Savearainbow. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * So as a fan who knows the band, I can't submit the article? Thanks for the quick response. Savearainbow (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still unclear whether you have a connection to the band or not (WP:COI), since you did not directly answer my question. In any case, you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not directly connected to the band other than being a fan. Nowhere in your comments or responses did I see an actual question. Honestly, I feel like we're having two different conversations. You gave critiques that did not apply to my article. You're saying I didn't answer a non-existing question. I already submitted this article (a different editor reviewed it and gave very helpful suggestions) and this concept of COI never came up. I understand you're a volunteer editor and are doing the best you can, but this is quite frustrating.

Savearainbow (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

A week and no response. Ok, you'll be happy to know I'm giving up. I'm passing this over to another fan I know in the UK to submit. Perhaps he'll get a better response. I already told the band that I've run up against an editor who seems to be dead set against the article.

Savearainbow (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "I already told the band that I've run up against..." suggests that you are in personal contact with the band, so not "just" a fan (?). In any case, I've responded earlier and suggested that you ask for a second opinion at the WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. I do not plan to comment on this draft further. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis
Thank you for reviewing Draft:Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis. This was rejected due to "this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", however I do not believe that is the correct consensus. This event was covered in various local, national, and | international reliable secondary sources, so should meet WP:GNG. It also resulted in continued coverage and has had long term effects beyond the event itself, so WP:NOTNEWS shouldn't apply.

This page follows WP:SINGLEEVENT which says that "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." The most recent version of this draft isn't targeting the individual person (who wouldn't otherwise be notable) but rather the event, which is clearly significant. Please compare this page to the various other pages in Category:Bullying_and_suicide which are also titled "Suicide of X" instead of just "X", and use {infobox event} instead of {infobox person}. Also compare to another filmed suicide page, Suicide of Kevin Whitrick, which has been deemed notable enough to easily survive deletion proposal. Katelyn Davis' case should be considered at least as notable as all these other pages, in that it had much more national and international coverage, her death was actually recorded on video and was seen by literally millions of people (often unwittingly) during its weeks on Facebook, and in the case's later ramifications on modifying policy on Facebook and other social media platforms. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Advice needed on Draft:Bram van Sambeek
Thank you for your review, but in all honesty I am a bit frustrated that you give different feedback than your colleague reviewer: "This topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." You also state that it is still extremely promotional. I find that feedback extremely vague. Your colleague mentioned the "award winning", which is a fact of life, as we are talking about one of the world´s best bassoon players. But I removed that.

Please explain to me why this is extremely promotional? Give me three examples where the text is still extremely promotional? From that I can learn (I am a fast learner) and adapt the submission. Thank you in advance for your advice. --Sobatipep (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see Spam. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but that is quite general feedback, which I find hard to work with. Your perception of sales language or written as an advertisement is quite different from mine it seems, so it is hard to improve if the feedback is not specific enough. But I will give it a try, although I think, more specific feedback would save everyone time. --Sobatipep (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I did a good attempt to make it more neutral by taking out all adjectives and opinions. I took out the reference to a future album release and I also took out quotes and changed the use of first name to either the complete name or just the last name. I reordered some of the text and made special projects and experiments a part of Career as to not make it stand out that much. I think it is quite neutral now. I am not quite sure how to submit the article for review now, though. I asked for Advice through the button that you added in your review. Could you inform me how to submit or how the process works differently from the previous time? The way Wikipedia works is not intuitive for me, so I need some guidance. Thank you. --Sobatipep (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I see that you've asked for a second opinion at the WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. I do not plan to comment on this draft further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --Sobatipep (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier
The sculptor artist and writer is found in the Basque Encyclopedia of Sculptors, as well as in wikipedia in Spanish and in wikipedia in Basque, his Basque mythology books are found as references in innumerable bibliographies of articles and wikipedia pages in English and Spanish: Basque Mythology, Basajaun, Mari, Tartalo, Aatxe, etc. Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier, sculptor and writer of the Basque mythological is a reference source in Basque mythology as: Andrés Ortiz-Osés or José Migel Barandiaran and the author has sufficient references for the creation of his page in the Basque encyclopedy and in numerous international art magazines, you should create the author page in the wikipedia in English and a redirection to the wikipedia of the author in Spanish. Best regards and I hope you consider the creation of the author page and / or its redirection to your wikipedia in Spanish.85.84.33.126 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

For your list of known right-wing publishers
Here is one for your list of known right-wing publishers that I came across while expanding the National Zeitung article: The Deutscher Buchdienst, founded by Gerhard Frey (politician), now run by the Adoria Verlag. Their Ritterkreuztraeger card game pretty much says it all, or what about the Germany in the borders of 1937 jigsaw? However, Frey's Ehrenbund Rudel might be defunct now, to late to join. Turismond (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow. I've been studying the Judaica section with... with... interest, I suppose. We have an article on the "MacDonald" who has written many of the books listed: Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist). Bishonen &#124; talk 17:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC).
 * thank you; good find! --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have started a Draft:List of German far-right publications and publishers since 1945, hoping to compile a bit of a list of the major ones. Feel free to contribute if you got time. I will use your list as a reference as I progress. Turismond (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)