Archives

Nov 2015 * Dec 2015 Jan/Feb 2016 * Mar 2016 April 2016 * May 2016 June 2016 * July 2016 August 2016 * Sept 2016 Oct 2016 * Nov 2016 Dec 2016 * January 2017 Feb 2017 * March 2017 April 2017 * May 2017 June 2017 * July 2017 August 2017 * Sept 2017 Oct 2017 * Nov 2017 Dec 2017 * January 2018 Feb 2018 * March 2018 April 2018 * May 2018 June 2018 * July 2018 August 2018 * Sept 2018 Oct 2018 * Nov 2018 Dec 2018 * Jan 2019

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 12 sections are present.

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)[reply]

@C0273x: 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)[reply]

• Kisscsi (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MET Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)[reply]

@Kisscsi: 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)[reply]

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)

@AThammanna: You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Ndizibanana: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Ndizibanana: the draft has been submitted and would be reviewed in due time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: 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

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]} M416p (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@M416p: In addition to insufficient notability, too much promotional editing and sockpuppetry going on that draft. See for example: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ua7r. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

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)[reply]

@Hackney Rhythm: I don't believe that this meets WP:CREATIVE; you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Coretheapple: 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)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for swooping in and helping out on the GA review! 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 15:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Money emoji: 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)[reply]

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[reply]

@Loonieeex: I still do not see notability here; please see WP:NSOFT & WP:NOTHOWTO. ----K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Kvng: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Meli.roden: 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)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: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)[reply]

@Meli.roden: I will let another reviewer assess this draft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Potatowrite: 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)[reply]

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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please self-revert your edit removing the NPOV template prematurely. M . M 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]