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

Draft:FxPro
Hi. I'd like to request a re-review this article. --Штрих (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the page does not meet WP:CORP; significant WP:RS coverage not found. It's a non-viable draft, unfortunately. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Günther von Kluge
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Günther von Kluge] has been completed.

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

Congratulations on receiving Good Article status for it.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:uJVM
Hi. I've expanded the draft you've recently rejected. Could you please re-review it? I know the reason for rejection was lack of notability, however, there are accepted articles in Wikipedia on other JVM implementations that are also obscure and have little practical applications (see, for example, Mika VM or Mysaifu JVM). --A.Molyavko (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Do note that the presence of any given article is not a valid reason to include another. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I find your evaluation of article to be good enough. In your opinion, what improvements can be made to this article to make it worthy of publishing? --A.Molyavko (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be more in line with the critical assessment and less of a WP:HOWTO. For example, are there any third-party reviews? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Pete Demers
Hi there - I have requested the image of Pete Demers be undeleted. I have permission from the person who took the photo; from the person in the photo; and from the agency that issued the certificate. All have agreed for their image or content to be used in this format. Thank you MarionPB (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier, Wikimedia Commons is a separate project. Please see: User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2019/January. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I've had several exchanges and it's very difficult to get to the precise requirements for successfully completing this page, with images. On the other hand, the Wikipedia content has been more of a straightforward process. Thanks for that. I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarionPB (talk • contribs) 10:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

SMUGGLER Company Deletion
Hi there - I just noticed that SMUGGLER was deleted due to not meeting relevancy guidelines. Could you please reconsider future deletions of the page? I agree that the tone taken in the initial article was overtly promotional, but the idea that the company cannot be considered relevant is misleading (additionally, that the entire page has to be deleted rather than simply making the language more factual). SMUGGLER produced the "Skittles Commercial" on Broadway in 2019, the musical Once , and has received AdAge's Production Company of the Year Award multiple times. These may seem like "congratulatory" accolades but they are factual. It would be like deleting any other notable advertising production company with a Wikipedia page (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RadicalMedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Content). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbybrownnyc (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see: Articles for deletion/Smuggler (company). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:WPO_(company)
Hi, and first, thank you a lot for your dedication. I've made many changes to my draft in order to wikify the content, added some sources and scrapped a few sentences. It would be very kind of you to get a glance and tell me if you think this version copes better with Wikipedia's requirements. I'll then process to submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0273x (talk • contribs) 14:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the page does not meet WP:CORP; significant WP:RS coverage not found. It's a non-viable draft, unfortunately. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

MET Group
I rewrite the MET Group article and I would like ti publish it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kisscsi/MET_Group What't the next step? Kisscsi (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the page does not meet WP:CORP; significant WP:RS coverage not found. It's a non-viable draft, unfortunately. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Easy Wanderlings
Hi, Based on your feedback, I have edited the page and request you to review it. The band does fit the criteria issued for music bands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Easy_Wanderlings — Preceding unsigned comment added by AThammanna (talk • contribs)
 * You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Mr Puaz
Hello, I have made some addition changes on the draft Draft:Mr Puaz. Kindly assist to check if I have been able to get it to where it should be. Also I have seen someone chakusi removed the tag didn't know how to return it back.

I will appreciate your comment.Ndizibanana (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the page does not meet WP:CREATIVE; significant WP:RS coverage not found. It's a non-viable draft, unfortunately. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello K.e.coffman am sure by now it can be well though am still adding more reliable sources. let me know of anything that can help to improve. Ndizibanana (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the draft has been submitted and would be reviewed in due time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019
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) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Bimlesh Adhikari

 * Hello! Being connected to subject i have edited the draft with proper references though someone else submitted it. Please once re-review it. I think it looks good to be published . Most of reliable sources are Nepalese ... I think you did not review it plus visit its additional reference http://www.filmykhabar.com/celebrities/bimlesh_adhikari/ (Nepal's no 1 web magazine). Some references

M416p (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In addition to insufficient notability, too much promotional editing and sockpuppetry going on that draft. See for example: Sockpuppet investigations/Ua7r. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:The Orbalist
Hi K.e.coffman, more media sources have been added to the article and I'd like to ask for you to re-review it and give some feedback/guidance to succeed publishing it. Many thanks in advance.Hackney Rhythm (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that this meets WP:CREATIVE; you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Philip Johnson
If you have a spare moment would appreciate your looking at Philip Johnson. I've added some sources concerning his preward Nazi sympathies and thought you might have more on that point. Coretheapple (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for the addition. I don't have any sources on Johnson; the new material looks good! --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * thank you; I appreciate it. It was pretty easy to address the issues, given that the review was specific and helpful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Handy Backup
Greetings! I have rewrited the Handy Backup draft page that you rejected earlier, taking in account your opinions and guidelines. Now it has some sources and evidences, a short history page, contains links to positive and negative opinions, and uses some independent data sources. Can you re-review it? Loonieeex (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Loonieeex
 * I still do not see notability here; please see WP:NSOFT & WP:NOTHOWTO. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Typefox
I don't find any significant coverage either but there is some coverage and so it is not "hopeless". Rejecting this on first review seems inappropriate. ~Kvng (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I commented on the rejection, the page does not meet WP:NCORP; significant WP:RS coverage not found. Whether the review is 1st or 4th, it does not make much sense to implicitly ask the author to keep working on a non-viable draft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Crowdin
Hello! I've edited the article and included some more reliable resources, such as books. Please review my article again. Thanks! Meli.roden (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I still do not see notability under WP:NSOFT; please also see WP:NOTHOWTO. However, please feel free to resubmit and the draft will be reviewed in due course. I'd prefer to not re-review the draft myself; that way, you can get a second opinion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! I removed some resources, that might look less notable. Can you give me a direction here? Are there any specific sources you do not find reliable? Also, do you believe that the article now reads from a neutral point of view?Meli.roden (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will let another reviewer assess this draft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on Nazi gun control argument
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please self-revert your edit removing the NPOV template prematurely. I'd also appreciate if you could add a "not in citation given" template seeing as some of the text contradicts its own sources. Several editors have objected to the current version. M  .   M  21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see User_talk:VwM.Mwv/Archive_2. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What about it? M   .   M  21:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Meaning: you just came off an indefinite block, yet continue disruptive behaviour. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're being disruptive. For the record, I stand by my statement (you may have missed it) that I am not interested in editing that article for the moment. I'd rather participate (occasionally) in the talk page discussion that I initiated. Also, please don't change my talk page edits. M   .   M  21:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read this carefully because it's going to be the last comment I bother making on the topic for a while: The neutrality of that article is disputed, whether you like it or not. You should do Wikipedia a service and restore at least one of the templates I recommended until talk page consensus is reached. M  .   M  21:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read your comment carefully; thank you for making this your last comment. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * VwM.Mwv: note - if K.e.coffman determines your postings on his talkpage in the future are only for disruption then he has the option of not replying at all and reverting them from his talk page. So, keep that in mind. Kierzek (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for the concern. I do not have any issues with people leaving messages on my Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Wampler Pedals
Hi, I'm attempting to update this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wampler_Pedals) to meet the corporate notability guidelines after you flagged it as being below the current standard. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing, so I'm not 100% sure if I've made enough changes, but I've tried to find quality sources and to associate the company with existing content on Wikipedia as well. They are quite notable in the industry they are part of, having collaborated with Brad Paisley for multiple pedals, for example.

Thank you! Potatowrite (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * please review WP:CORP and especially WP:CORPDEPTH. For small businesses, it's hard to meet these requirements. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! I've taken another pass and added significantly more depth to the profile and history and production process sections. The company is one of the major players in the guitar pedal industry, but I don't think I represented that effectively in the earlier draft. Does the added depth look better? I've been basing it off other boutique pedal pages on Wikipedia to give me ideas of what to cover and how. JHS Pedals and Keeley Electronics to my eye have around the same amount of sources and types of sources as my new draft, but I may be misreading them. Again, I'm new to this and trying to get into contributions for guitar-related content (I have another article I've researched in the review queue currently) Potatowrite (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed my rejection and submitted the draft for you. It will be reviewed in due course. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help--I really appreciate your guidance on this draft. Potatowrite (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)