| Revision as of 01:32, 26 April 2018 editPackMecEng (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,516 edits →Presidency of Donald Trump← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:21, 9 January 2025 edit undoRedrose64 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators273,175 edits →Happy Holidays!: fix markup left unclosed by A.S. Brown | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{bots|deny=all|optout=MassMessage}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | algo = old( |
| algo = old(10d) | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 10 | ||
| | archive = User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | | archive = User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | ||
| | archiveheader = {{MonthlyArchive}} | | archiveheader = {{MonthlyArchive}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archive box|{{Col-begin}} | {{Archive box|{{Col-begin}} | ||
| {{Col-break}}] * ]<br/>] * ] <br/> ] * ]<br/> ] * ] <br/>] * ] <br/> ] * ] <br/> ] * ] <br/> ] * ] <br/> ] * ] <br/> ] * ] <br/> ] * ] <br/> ] * ] <br/> ] * ] <br/> ] * ] <br/> ] * ] <br/> ] * ] <br/> ] * ] <br/> ] * ] <br/> ] * ]<br/> ] * ]<br/> ] * ]<br/> ] * ]<br/>] * ]<br/>] * ]<br/>] * ]{{col-end}}}} | |||
| {{Col-break}}] * ]<br/>]<br/>] * ] <br> ] * ]<br/>] * | |||
| ]<br/>] * ]<br/>] * ]</br>] * ]</br>] * ] <br> ] * ]<br> ] * ] <br> ] * ]<br> ] * ]<br> ] * ]<br> ] * ]{{col-end}}}} | |||
| ==Deletion review for ]== | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> –] ] 21:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Dlthewave}} This has been quite interesting: ]. The link at the top goes from red to blue and back again on a daily basis it seems. --] (]) 02:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed. There are now five copies of it on my watchlist including one in my userspace, which is odd because I don't recall writing it. –] ] 02:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy Holidays== | |||
| == Doenitz and Raeder's pro-Nazi orders == | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] ] | |||
| ]<sup>]</sup> is wishing you ]! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's ] or ], ], ], ], ], ], ] or even the ], this is a special time of year for almost everyone! <br /> | |||
| I first read the articles on ] and ] back in 2013, when I first got into Misplaced Pages. I recall that the articles included orders by one and/or the other issued to the U-boat force advocating Nazi discipline. I can't seem to find those entries now. As you know, the U-boat force has one of the "least Nazi" reputations of the German WWII forces, as does Doenitz, who of course was designated by Hitler as his heir. If these orders can be properly sourced, exposing his loyalty to the regime he served so well would be useful. As for aircraft kills, my recollection from years ago is that all three of the "300 club" scored more than half of their kills against unarmed Soviet transport planes, and Marseille was perhaps the only 100+ pilot with most of his kills against the UK and US. I have not looked up these "facts" in 40+ years, so I could be wrong. ] (]) 23:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|RobDuch}} I believe that the Raeder article was split at some point, with the WWII content being largely moved to ]. This does not make much sense to me, as Raeder is perhaps best known for WWII. I believe the order you've mentioned in that spin-out article. Should the WWII content be perhaps merged back? | |||
| <small>Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{]:]}} to your friends' talk pages</small>. | |||
| ==="Aces"=== | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| You're correct about Marseille, but wrong about the others. The Germans rarely encountered Soviet transports, so virtually all of the kills by the Germans on the Eastern Front were of armed aircraft.--] (]) 00:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| :{{ping|Sturmvogel 66}} According to ], to be considered an "ace" one had to achieve success over an equally skilled opponent. For fighter pilots, shooting down bombers or ground attack aircraft? Not so impressive. I always chuckle when I see statements such as "All but one of his victories were claimed over the ], ''including 16 ]''. Sturmovik was a ground-attack aircraft. --] (]) 01:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Even the crappiest aircraft were armed. Heck, the ] usually had an anti-aircraft gun, and those were Po-2 wooden biplanes. (BTW, some Soviet aircraft were so crappy (for combat purposes because they were originally civilian planes) that they were actually very hard to shoot down. The Po-2 was a crop duster not intended for combat but crop dusting, to the point is was so slow German pilots found them nearly impossible to shoot down because they would stall while trying to line up shoot it down. Hence why the one pilot that shot down four night witch planes in one night was objectively notable, because members of the regiment's remembered it for years as the night the regiment was grounded. (And the incident has been written about in Russian a lot because it was a statistical anomaly) Point being, mass deletion is not a good idea and its better to improve/rewrite than delete in mass before fully reading the English and Russian versions. Ace may not just mean aircraft equivalent, but depends on how hard each type of plane was to shoot down. For example, in the pacific war, shooting down 5 wildcats would not be very impressive, but shooting down 5 hellcats? Very different. I could provide more examples if you would like, I might even dig up a photo of a Po-2 with an anti-aircraft gun mounted.--] (]) 02:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've never heard that an ace had to shoot down an equally skilled opponent and I've read a lot of ace biographies over the years, although I've never gotten into the WWI aces. I'd definitely want to see the cite for that. A kill was a kill as far as they were concerned; didn't matter if it was an unarmed C-47 over Arnhem or a Typhoon V fighter over Normandy. Don't knock the Il-2, it was probably the most heavily armored aircraft of the war and was very difficult to shoot down until the Germans figured out its vulnerabilities.--] (]) 02:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== U&A Reversion == | ||
| Hi. I saw that you were involved with the reversion of my post on the “Universities and Antisemitism” page, specifically about MIT. You cited the reasons as problematic, no original research, use of primary sources, and uncited segments. I was wondering if you would be able to specify which aspects of my blurb resulted in the reversion—from my understanding, each source I used was a secondary source and was properly cited. Additionally, I would appreciate clarification on what was “problematic” about my edit, since the page was focused on campus antisemitism, and I reported real incidents that occurred at MIT. Do you have any suggestions I could follow that could improve my work to fit Misplaced Pages’s standards in the future? Thanks so much! ] (]) 16:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Please explain these edits; & . Thank you - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 04:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi {{ping|Topiguana}} there were several issues, such as two paragraphs lacked citations at the end of them; use of primary sources (faculty newsletter); etc. In general, the contents looked like it was written by someone not well familiar with Misplaced Pages's best practices. The fundamental issue, though, is that your account is not extended-confirmed (see ]) and you, unfortunately, cannot contribute to the topic area, except for making edit requests on the talk pages. I'll leave you a note explaining that. --] (]) 19:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::These resources are super helpful, thank you so much for a detailed and guiding response! ] (]) 14:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would you be able to clarify the end-of-paragraph citations point? I have been looking through the resources you provided me with and was not able to find anything on this. Just want to make sure I do not make this mistake again in the future! ] (]) 14:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi {{ping|Topiguana}} I just meant to say that the contents lacked sources to back it up. In contentious areas, such as this, uncited material is often quickly removed. --] (]) 12:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :{{ping|Thewolfchild}} sure, per the discussion ], you were advised "not to impede the formation of consensus by being too bold with talk page actions (specifically, they should not take it upon themselves to maintain or "clerk" any discussions)". | |||
| Hi ]! You reviewed the page for the company ] a few months back. As I understood, the reason it does not meet notability is because of the lack of coverage. There is a lot of coverage in many different reliable sources, but most of it is just covering a few of the company's products, all though there is some discussion of legislative/political responses to the products. | |||
| :With that in mind, please explain these edits: ; ; . Thank you. ] (]) 02:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| A bit more coverage has come up over the last few months, and I wanted to ask your opinion - do you think this new coverage changes the overall notability profile enough to make it worth submitting for review again? | |||
| ::Well, I don't see how those edits were in any way "impeding the formation of consensus". As for the AE warning, I don't see where it says I can't participate ''at all'', nor do I see where it appointed you as some type of admin assistant tasked with monitoring my posts and 'clerking' any discussions I take part in, which is exactly what you have done in both instances here. You still haven't explained those specific edits, and simply saying "go read the AE close" is not sufficient. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 16:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Thewolfchild}} Most of us have come across comments that are a bit too snarky or personal, especially in heated discussions. Editors will often guide the conversation back to the topic at hand by responding only to content that is related to improving the article. This may be sufficient to defuse the situation. We might let a minor offenses slide, or bring it to the user's talk page if it needs to be addressed. Sometimes a noticeboard post is necessary for persistent offenders. In any case, personal comments and editor behavior should never be discussed on an article talk page, even if someone else brought it up first. | |||
| :::Your approach is the opposite: You tend to escalate the personal discussion, often drawing the conversation ''away'' from the topic at hand. This leads other editors to spend time and energy addressing your remarks instead of working toward consensus. I hope you can see how this disrupts the editing process and why it was brought to AE. I would suggest that you avoid addressing or responding to personal comments on article talk pages, and I would give any editor the same advice. By the way, thanks for bringing your concerns to K.e.coffman's talk page. This is the appropriate place for the discussion to take place. –] ] 18:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"''{{tq|Your approach is the opposite}}''"... and I am genuinely shocked, ''shocked!'', mind you, that you would think that, but the two examples cited here say different. The "''focus on content and '''not''' on editors''" mantra is one that you and your friend K.e. here should pay more attention to. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 18:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Thewolfchild}} Sure, I'd be happy to explain further. Deciding what is and what isn't a personal attack and then using this judgement to other editors' posts sounds like 'clerking' to me. I don't see where you were appointed as some sort of a junior admin tasked with monitoring other editors' posts and redacting them, repeatedly. | |||
| :::::If you have a problem with specific posts, please discuss with the editor directly, on their user Talk page. Turning the articles' Talk page into a venue to discuss ''editors'' not ''content'' is not what these pages are for. This derails discussions and is unnecessary. Just state your position on the issue and leave any 'clerking' and redactions to others. Thank you. ] (]) 01:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"Others"...? Like you? If only you could follow the advice you so freely dispense. And parakeeting my own post back to me doesn't explain anything, it only proves this to be a waste of time. As it stands right now, I have no editing restrictions and you are in no position to impose any on me, like some probational-acting-deputy-admin-in-training, and not while you are and your friend Dl here are doing the same very same things that you keep complaining about. So again I'll say, focus on content, not other editors... surely you can do that? - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 01:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ping|Thewolfchild}} you've come here to request an explanation for my edits, which I provided, twice. Isn't this what you wanted? Here it is, again: "Deciding what is and what isn't a personal attack and then using this judgement to modify other editors' posts sounds like 'clerking' to me." | |||
| ::::::::I've not "imposed" any "editing restrictions" on you; I'm not "complaining", etc. That said, I've requested an explanation for your edits, which you are yet to provide. Stating how {{tq|shocked, ''shocked!''}} you are is not sufficient. Please explain these edits: ; ; . Surely you can do that? ] (]) 01:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} So, "''{{tq|sounds like clerking to me}}''" is the only explanation you are going to provide. Got it. Like I said, trying to discuss this was a waste of time. Meanwhile, you're asking me to explain three edits (though the first two are the same) and the third is itself the explanation. So, are you ''really'' having that much difficty understanding them? Or is this just more gaslighting? Actually, strike that. No more questions, I think we're done here (at least, I am. This is your talk page, so feel free to have the last word). - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 17:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Thewolfchild}} You have a funny way of striking your questions. Comments are usually stricken by making another edit to strike through them, not writing both your questions and "{{tq|Strike that. No more questions}}" out in one edit: . An even more efficient way of striking one's comments is to take them out ''before'' hitting "save". But I guess you really wanted to ask those questions, didn't you? Separately, why did you believe that "''Not this again.'' That's not much of an argument. Not all of us have sat here spending our lives reading old arguments" is a ]? To the point of edit-warring over it? | |||
| Here are a few of the articles I am talking about: | |||
| :But strike that; no more questions. I do appreciate you letting me have the last word. And you are welcome to post here any time. BTW, you might consider implementing the same practice on your Talk page, instead of routinely removing other editors' comments or, even more bizarrely, moving them to the article's Talk pages, so that you could continue to have your emotional outbursts there. That's what led in part to the AE. So the fact that we were having this discussion here is progress, I guess. Have a nice day. ] (]) 02:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for Help == | |||
| Hello K.e.coffman, I began with care to write some lines concerning the history of the centre of this article in ], because I found a 100% fitting source. Could you help and have a look? In my opinion there is too much (not law concerned) overhead in this article grown by editing over the years. In this case to be found in the first two sections of ]. Please have a look if my grammar is correct and eliminate some overhead. Will you be so kind and help in this case? Best --] (]) 08:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Your IP-Tracker == | |||
| Hello K.e.coffman, coincidentally I saw your ] and that there was a problematic IP from British Columbia. There are more IPs from the same area which have been identified with disruptive edits (especially one IP since 2011). May I draw your attention to ]? Sorrowfully up to now I could not see whether these findings could be used so far. Best --] (]) 09:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Ｔｏｍ}} I don't think that these are at all related. Note that the BC address was blocked as part of a mass block and it was a while ago. The topic area is also completely different. --] (]) 00:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah ok thanks for your estimation. Do you think there is something to do about the Nanaimo & Victoria IPs ? --] (]) 10:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Just letting you know. == | |||
| Someone undid your creation of the redirect ] and made it a full blown article again. I restored the redirect, but largely as a result of your conclusion that he was not notable. Just making sure your judgement still stands. ] <small><sup>'' ]</sup> <sub>]</sub>'' </small> 16:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Eddie891}} thank you. Yes, this does come up occasionally. If such articles are nominated for deletion, they mostly end up being deleted / redirected, e.g.: ]. If the Ribbentrop page is restored again, I will probably AfD it. --] (]) 23:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Could you take a look at this. I've just PRODed it, but I'd be guided by your feedback. ] (]) 01:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Kudpung}} I think it was a correct PROD. An obscure author whose works on Nazi Germany are not used as sources on either en.wiki or de.wiki. No reviews, etc. --] (]) 01:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. ] (]) 01:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::PROD was removed by creator without addressing the issues and a rather odd es. Sent to AfD. ] (]) 02:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| If this doesn't change anything, I would appreciate a brief explanation of why, as it would help me to better understand the editorial process and avoid wasting anyone's time in the future! Thanks. ] (]) 11:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Your ] nomination of ]== | |||
| :Hi {{ping|Chagropango}} thank you for your message. You can ask for a second opinion at ]. You can provide your sources there and get an unbiased review. I generally do not re-review articles. --] (]) 12:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ]; see ] 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 ] to appear in Did you know.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 03:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == June thanks == | |||
| == Erich Hoepner and the current Arbcom case request == | |||
| {{User QAIbox | |||
| | image = Rose flowers, Bingen.jpg | |||
| | image_upright = 0.8 | |||
| | bold = ] · ] · ] | |||
| }} | |||
| Thank you for improving article quality in June! - Today we have ] (documentation about it by ]) and ] had two sentences yesterday and was up for deletion, and needs a few more citations. -- ] (]) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Precious anniversary === | |||
| {{User QAIbox/auto|years=Eight}} | |||
| --] (]) 20:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi. Your Arbcom case request includes references to the article on Erich Hoepner, as an example of the alleged issue. As you know I recently did a GA review on that article, in my capacity as a random member of Milhist. Am also in a position to vote on the case request in my capacity as a random member of Arbcom. | |||
| * What are the rules for appealing your decision about allegedly "not sufficiently notable for inclusion"? ] (]) 19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Checking-In on You == | |||
| I haven't (yet) recused from the case because I don't see this piece of fairly minor content analysis as impinging on the likelihood of a fair hearing. But am keen to get your views either way, as a principal participant in the request as it stands. -- ] (]) 03:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Euryalus}} thank you for checking. I don't have any issues with your participation. --] (]) 23:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Looks like you've taken the month off entirely. Just wanted to pop-in and ensure everything is going well and remind you that when you're not doing your usual work, it is noticed -- meaning, you're missed. ] (]) 19:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Clean Wehrmacht tall tale == | |||
| :Hi {{ping|Obenritter}} Thank you -- I appreciate the concern. I occasionally take breaks from Misplaced Pages; this is nothing to worry about! --] (]) 20:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good to hear. :-) --] (]) 14:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] appealing their topic ban: Your opinion requested == | |||
| Inspired by the Arbcom case. See, I thought that ] was a concept about war crimes and complicity in crimes against humanity, without including military incompetence. ] (], ]) 14:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Hello {{u|K.e.coffman}}, I think your opinion about the following amendment request would be highly valuable: | |||
| == Your essay == | |||
| Only just noticed it so I added a comment on the Bugle talk page. I was surprised at what you have found, even though it's been discussed on the MilHist page often enough. In my furrow obsolete texts aren't as ideologically questionable, just bad scholarship or the obsolete stuff of commercial history (the Schlieffen Plan comes to mind) endlessly repackaged like the Hitler channel. It seems to me that Wiki rules contain a conservative corollary which makes truth a matter of quantity of sources, rather than quality. Is there a nationality correlation with the sources (authors and editors) used to whitewash the Hitler regime? Regards ] (]) 19:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_German_war_effort}} | |||
| == Presidency of Donald Trump == | |||
| In a nutshell, {{u|Cinderella157}} is appealing their topic ban, which was created due to personal attacks against you ({{slink|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German_war_effort#Conduct_of_Cinderella157}}). | |||
| I am going to ask you self-revert before an AE is filed for breaking consensus required. ] (]) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you very much in advance and best regards,<br>] (]) 13:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|PackMecEng}} Thank you for attempting to resolve this dispute here. I do, however, see rough consensus for inclusion. According to my review of the TP discussion, here's the breakdown: | |||
| :{{ping|ToBeFree}} Thank you for your message; I responded on the ARCA page. --] (]) 20:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*Yes: SPECIFICO Drmies Volunteer Marek BullRangifer K.e.coffman Neutrality (6) | |||
| ::A relief. Thank you very much! ] ] (]) 20:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| :*No: PackMecEng Politrukki Atsme Orser67 (4) | |||
| <blockquote>'''Disambiguation page not required (]). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.'''</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| :Aquillion's position was a bit unclear, but I think it was leaning yes. So far, no one else has expressed concerns. If you still have objections, I can raise the issue on the article's Talk page and ping everyone — especially Aquillion, to clarify his position. If I miscounted or misinterpreted anything, please let me know. --] (]) 00:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::You forgot Markbassett for oppose. So that would be 6 to 5, but even if it was 6 to 4 that is not enough for consenses. So one last time, I ask you self-revert. ] (]) 01:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 12:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Io Saturnalia!== | |||
| {| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="right" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == December thanks == | |||
| {{User QAIbox | |||
| | image = Ehrenbach, snow on grass melting.jpg | |||
| | image_upright = 0.8 | |||
| | bold = ] · ] · ] | |||
| }} | |||
| Thank you today for improving article quality in December! - Today is ]. -- ] (]) 16:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy Holidays== | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:lightyellow; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] ]{{Center|]}} | |||
| Wishing you a most happy holidays! --] (]) 00:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
Latest revision as of 00:21, 9 January 2025
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Happy Holidays
User:A.S. Brown is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.
U&A Reversion
Hi. I saw that you were involved with the reversion of my post on the “Universities and Antisemitism” page, specifically about MIT. You cited the reasons as problematic, no original research, use of primary sources, and uncited segments. I was wondering if you would be able to specify which aspects of my blurb resulted in the reversion—from my understanding, each source I used was a secondary source and was properly cited. Additionally, I would appreciate clarification on what was “problematic” about my edit, since the page was focused on campus antisemitism, and I reported real incidents that occurred at MIT. Do you have any suggestions I could follow that could improve my work to fit Misplaced Pages’s standards in the future? Thanks so much! Topiguana (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Topiguana: there were several issues, such as two paragraphs lacked citations at the end of them; use of primary sources (faculty newsletter); etc. In general, the contents looked like it was written by someone not well familiar with Misplaced Pages's best practices. The fundamental issue, though, is that your account is not extended-confirmed (see WP:XCON) and you, unfortunately, cannot contribute to the topic area, except for making edit requests on the talk pages. I'll leave you a note explaining that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- These resources are super helpful, thank you so much for a detailed and guiding response! Topiguana (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Would you be able to clarify the end-of-paragraph citations point? I have been looking through the resources you provided me with and was not able to find anything on this. Just want to make sure I do not make this mistake again in the future! Topiguana (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Topiguana: I just meant to say that the contents lacked sources to back it up. In contentious areas, such as this, uncited material is often quickly removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Throwflame_(company)
Hi K.e.coffman! You reviewed the page for the company Throwflame a few months back. As I understood, the reason it does not meet notability is because of the lack of coverage. There is a lot of coverage in many different reliable sources, but most of it is just covering a few of the company's products, all though there is some discussion of legislative/political responses to the products.
A bit more coverage has come up over the last few months, and I wanted to ask your opinion - do you think this new coverage changes the overall notability profile enough to make it worth submitting for review again?
Here are a few of the articles I am talking about:
If this doesn't change anything, I would appreciate a brief explanation of why, as it would help me to better understand the editorial process and avoid wasting anyone's time in the future! Thanks. Chagropango (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Chagropango: thank you for your message. You can ask for a second opinion at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. You can provide your sources there and get an unbiased review. I generally do not re-review articles. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
June thanks
 | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for improving article quality in June! - Today we have a centenarian story (documentation about it by Percy Adlon) and an article that had two sentences yesterday and was up for deletion, and needs a few more citations. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Eight years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft:UFC 27
- What are the rules for appealing your decision about allegedly "not sufficiently notable for inclusion"? Teterev53 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Checking-In on You
Looks like you've taken the month off entirely. Just wanted to pop-in and ensure everything is going well and remind you that when you're not doing your usual work, it is noticed -- meaning, you're missed. Obenritter (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Obenritter: Thank you -- I appreciate the concern. I occasionally take breaks from Misplaced Pages; this is nothing to worry about! --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good to hear. :-) --Obenritter (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Cinderella157 appealing their topic ban: Your opinion requested
Hello K.e.coffman, I think your opinion about the following amendment request would be highly valuable:
In a nutshell, Cinderella157 is appealing their topic ban, which was created due to personal attacks against you (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort § Conduct of Cinderella157).
Thank you very much in advance and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: Thank you for your message; I responded on the ARCA page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- A relief. Thank you very much!
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- A relief. Thank you very much!
Proposed deletion of Christian Hartmann (disambiguation)
The article Christian Hartmann (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Io Saturnalia!
.jpg)
|
Io, Saturnalia! | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
December thanks
 | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you today for improving article quality in December! - Today is a woman poet's centenary. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
.jpg)
Wishing you a most happy holidays! --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: