User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2017/November

Thanks!

Thanks for trying to help, but it looks like DS is all yours for at least a month or two, perhaps longer. Best of luck and thanks again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I have been banned from all discussion of the subject that I can not mention, and thanks again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

[1] I do wonder if changing a section 5th 6th 7th times in 3mos, without a warning or consensus, in fact against consensus; is that edit warring, just on a very slow pace. The same question for removing unwanted content by repeated building and then deletion of bibliography that then drops the citation, then claim the unwanted piece is not sourced and deleting it a month or two later; is that pushing a POV in very slow motion. These are questions I ask as I work on my current projects. Best of luck and thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

From your brief description given above, that could be considered a slow-motion edit war. Kierzek (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, The Longoria Affair still is an open wound for many in Southwest Texas.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, would you be so kind as to trying that again with all the new information? Thank you. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Panzer Aces

Hi - I am currently adding more references to the panzer ace table, so would appreciate it if you don't do a mass delete. If you can find individal references that are problematical, please advise and I am happy to remove them or replace them if I can. But doing a mass deletion of many references, from many diffrent RS, without no justification or information is not helping to make this a better RS sourced article. Thanks (and I appreciate your help in pulling out bad references). Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: Let's keep the discussion centralised at Panzer ace#References in List of high scoring tank commanders. Thank you for self-reverting. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Will do, all good. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Rommel page

Hi coffman. I just ask you, why did you cancel the infos i added to the Erwin Rommel page? I verified them with the sources and they were about the honors and the medals Rommel had in the WWI, and they weren't so long as a paraghaph for such a detailed article. Thanks, Fra Casa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fra Casa (talk • contribs)

@Fra Casa: Thank you for your message. It looks that related content has been since added by another contributor: [2], so I think we are good. Please let me know if you have additional concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Strecker and RSNB

Hey, sorry I've just run off the past week. Your posting on the noticeboard has fallen off for age but I haven't forgotten. I'll get around to working on the portions you identified and making some changes today or tomorrow. Or, if you'd like, you can start making changes that you have the ability to based on the sources you have and we can go from there. Either way, I'd like to get it to GA status and that's not going to happen if you have it right about the sources. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@LargelyRecyclable: Thank you for your message. I responded on the article's talk page: Talk:Karl_Strecker#RSN. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Hi there. I see you tagged AEI Media for speedy delete. Do you think Viper Recordings should be as well? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Yes, I would agree with this assessment. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Web Summit

Hi, K.e.coffman. I believe that the infomation at the Web Summit page was valuable, perhaps not presented in the best format. I would like to hear more people's opinions on the matter. Please do participate. It would be great to hear from you especially of why you feel that the detail is "intricate" and how it constitutes "promo" or why you believe it to be so. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: I was hoping to continue the discussion at Talk:Web Summit/Archives/2023/September#Removal of most of article without discussion. Please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi K.e.coffman. When I opened the discussion I had genuinely believed that a few more people would be interested, I did not want a your view/ my view situation. Well, so the event appears to enjoy less visibility than I had thought, which is an indication that the event deserves less prominence. However, being an annual event, I still am of the opinion that a year-by-year format is preferable to a single general history. Wheher that is best served with short paragraphs or a table (or similar) format, I have no preferences. Perhaps the table format has the advantage of making is more apparent to editors that content should be limited to the bare minimum to avoid addistions such as this.

Here is a suggested re-write for the 2016 section:

In September 2015 it was announced that the event would be held in Lisbon for three consecutive editions. The three-day event drew 53,056 attendees from more than 150 countries and more than 1,500 start-ups spread over 21 venues. Among the speakers were John Chambers of Cisco, Facebook CTO Mike Schroepfer, Twitter founder Jack Dorsey and Tesla's Elon Musk.

However, it is begining to dawn on me that the listing of speakers, however few, does sound slightly promo-ish. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom Candidate questions

You accidentally put the wrong diff. I think you're looking for [3]. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Thanks, I fixed it just now. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Addepar

Hi, on your recent tag as Addepar being promotional. Totally open to it not being worthy of a page but the promotional capture caught my cauriosity. Can you point out the things you aren’t seeing or should the page get remove? User:WestportWiki

@WestportWiki: yes, I'd say it's an WP:AfD candidate. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello K e, thanks for your speedy on the Hoffman Institute bullcrap - I would have done so myself but I wanted a 2nd opinion - . MarkDask 18:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Markdask: thank you. One would be surprised about what can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Companies :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, K.e.coffman. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thank you for your message. This is something I might consider in the future. I'm fairly active at AfD which is woefully lacking in participation is some areas, so I may continue to focus on that for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC).

Is this appropriate?

Hello. I am not sure how much of an expert you are on images but, in your opinion, does the image for this article seem in bad taste? I realize the subject is know only for being a murder victim yet it just seems a bit morbid to have in the intro of the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: I agree; the image is not suitable for the lead. I moved it lower down. Hope this works! --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)