User talk:Bobby Cohn

Archives and other talk page banners.

Archives: Index 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. This user talk page often deals with similar or reoccurring topics. Generic titles of messages may be reformatted for clarity, such as renaming the section title to a link of the topic page. This user is a regular and doesn't mind if you template him. Though he will appreciate if you expand on your reasoning should your concern not be immediately apparent.

 Courtesy link: Draft:Desh Pal S. Verma

Hi Bobby,

thank you for leaving the comments on how to edit and correct the Biography for Dr.Verma. I am however struggling to fix the edits or know which edits to properly fix. Is there a way you can highlight all what needs to be edited so I can make my corrections? I am trying to have his biography published for him before he passes. For the External links are the links broken or how do i properly inlay them to fit your wiki formatting requirements? This is my first wikipedia page creation for Dr. Verma and I am trying my best! Any help of advice would be greatly appreciated! Vermadesh (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vermadesh, I've removed the inline links, there is more detail in the linked project page explaining why they are not appropriate. I have also tagged the material that would need to be verified before the article is published, lest it be challenged and removed. There is also extensive listing of the subject's publications, typically it is best to only list the top 4 or 5 by impact or citation metrics. There are other websites whose role it is to host these lists, Wikipedia is not one of them. I've also dome some copy editing removing the promotional wording in the draft, I imaging another reviewer will examine this as well. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bobby can you please review the verma biography one more time and make any more comments or adjustments that you see fit. I have tried to make the proper edits as you have requested! I appreciate your patience and willingness to help Thanks again! Vermadesh (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my practice to do reviews upon request; I may have a look at it if I have some time, but I can't make any promises. At a quick cursory glance, I don't spot any glaring issues. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason it was closed as not moved? It seemed to be no consensus (4 in favor/4 against), and without a summary it’s hard to tell where the consensus against a move is coming from. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're making the mistake of counting votes, but even if we were to do that, half of those that "voted" support caged or prefaced their support as weak or as conditional to the name retiring. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, to further answer your question, it looked to me like people were making PTOPIC arguments that weren't gaining a ton of traction, coupled with caveated CRYSTALBALL speculation and sourcing was generally sparse, especially when asked for. As with any consensus decision, should new facts arise (and I would encourage a new RM to present them, of course), now or in the future, it would not preclude a new RM. But in the current argument, I generally read consensus to be against the move in the current state. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes more sense then. Thank you for your insight. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I'm very new to wikipedia & the person in that article is my Great-Grandfather. Kindly help me out & guide me so that my page gets accepted & published in the open space. HalderRemer88 (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HalderRemer88: between my declination and your resubmission, all you did was change one citation and a piped link. I would caution you against spamming the resubmit button before actually addressing the concerns raised by reviewers, I would note you did something similar between the previous review and my own. Reviewers tend to find this disruptive and will not aid in having your article published.

I've added maintenance tags to the first two sections that I saw that didn't contain a single reference. I would also note the information in the infobox is most likely written because of your WP:COI and not based on any sources that I was able to find in the text. It looks to me, because you are writting about your grandfather, that you're writting the article WP:BACKWARD. Instead, only write about things that can be demonstrated by reliable sources, cite to those sources inline in the text as you have variously done throughout the article, and cut the rest.

It is also best that your declare your conflict of interest on your user page.

All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hope your doing good. I was wondering if you could tell me in depth, what an independant source is, because I think this is what was missing? Fkuma (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fkuma, please see the project page WP:Independent sources for the complete explanation. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bobby Cohn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:.zip, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept it, its for a prank and its not like anyone is going to look up my exact name, I would love if you accepted it. 12.233.61.211 (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page ‘Ten Universities, One Stage’ is related to a unique dance culture in Hong Kong, which is the university mass dance. The sources cited in the references are all the sources we could find for this topic. What else can we do to have more reliable sources? Thank you.Twinne Yang (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Twinne Yang, two things:

1. In my comment, I left a link to WP:REFB, this describes how to use your citations, properly format them, and use them inline. Please make sure to review that, and then if you have any specific questions I would be happy to help further.
2. Who is "we"? Do multiple people use your account? How are you related to the subject in your draft?

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you review my draft ? i have added many sources and removed quite a few as well. Taramayatamang (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Taramayatamang, I don't do reviews upon request. Please be patient, another reviewer will conduct their own review shortly. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help me in creating my article please Dan Merrony (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dan Merrony. Start by collecting sources that are independent from the subject and cover the subject in significant coverage. Then, summarise what those sources have to say about the subject. YouTube videos, Spotify songs, and Google searches are not reliable sources; remove those. Interviews are not independent but may be used to cite some non-promotional facts. Then, remove anything that isn't cited. See WP:BACKWARDS. If you've found at least three sources that are independent and cover the subject in significant detail such that the subject is notable, then resubmit by clicking the blue button. Do not remove the previous comments left by reviewers. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bobby Cohn,

I saw your comment from yesterday on ANI about receiving too many notifications. I only see your username mentioned once in this ANI discussion so I don't know why you kept receiving notifications. But you can change whether or not to receive any notifications at all by going into your account Preferences and adjusting these. This is very easy to do on a laptop or desktop, the link is at the top of every page. But I'm not sure of the user interface if you edit with a mobile device. But, for example, I receive no email notices at all unless an editor sends me an email. So, please explore your options here so you won't be so bothered with unnecessary notifications. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Liz, it was that and email (and I thought a talk page ping but I don't see it on the user's talk page so I may be mistake). Like I said, I have no issues with pings because I only get them on-Wiki but I wasn't sure if there was a setting that prevented blocked users from emailing. I know in the preferences I see I can restrict new users but that's it. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bobby Cohn, I left a response in our dialogue exchange for an edit request on Bell Bank and am seeking clarity on the matter. I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. WikiWriter1005 (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WikiWriter1005, yes it has been on the back of my mind to give you a proper and in-depth response. I will respond there shortly so as to not fracture the discussion. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently did a complete revision of my Braveland Conference AfC draft, revising the narrative and adding more information to the backstory of the realignment. I also got rid of the high school yearbook citations entirely as I've been finding that they tell a whole lot more about the what than the why of conference realignment. I've instead relied solely on newspaper clippings - basically, if it doesn't have a byline, I'm not interested. Please feel free to check it out and comment. Thanks!

Draft:Braveland Conference - Wikipedia Moserjames79 (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Moserjames79, sorry I never followed up with our previous discussion, but my reading of the discussion at the RSN, now archived at Archive 455 § The use of yearbooks as a source for an external but related organization, says that the concern wasn't really about the reliability of the sources, as you have cited everything adequately (in re: the previous draft), but rather the WP:Notability of the organization. I probably should have framed my question on the noticeboard better, but the idea is that you probably want to find coverage of the conference (not just the games or schools) in WP:Independent sources. Three is often cited as enough when discussed at other venues, see WP:THREE.

Courtesy ping @Headbomb and @ActivelyDisinterested, so as to not misrepresent their comments, or if they would like to offer more advice.

I have not yet read through the new draft, so I cannot comment on the specifics, at least right now. I do see some excessive use of WP:External links that should be removed. I don't think your previous draft, after you cited the sources for the facts, was necessarily that bad. It just needed a better and independent claim to notability. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is all good to know. Regarding the use of external links, I've been using them for two things: enrollment data and state championships. The latter has lists by sport on the WIAA website, which are linked on each table. There is also a comprehensive list of all state championships that also includes sports no longer sponsored by the WIAA (i.e. curling, summer baseball, etc.). Would a single link to the comprehensive list be a better use of an external link? Moserjames79 (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest archiving them using the Wayback Machine and then using them as a reference. Describe them appropriately and then follow the popup on WP:INTREF3 as a {{cite web}} with the archive url parameter and date retrieved to allow others to ensure you've propperly verified your work. You can use just one reference at the top of each table as you have, in lieu of the external link. Two are appropriate if, as you say, support different columns. In that case, consider instead placing the citation at the top of the column the data supports. I hope this was clear, I can rephrase or provide an example if this was a lot at once. Let me know, Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn: Hi Bobby I read your notices about my draft of Eleanna Finokalioti, can you please tell me exactly where are the problems on my article (at references I guess) so I can fix them??

Thanks

George Liristis Georgelgreco (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Georgelgreco: have you read my comment or looked at the draft to see my revisions? At the risk of repeating myself, I've already tagged some of the most problematic sections with {{citation needed}} and {{unreferenced section}}. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobby again...Yes, I read carefully what you posted...First of all...

1) I George Liristis declare that I don't have any family relationship with Eleanna Finokalioti, I am her biographer and photographer and I want to show to the wikipedia world her work, her talent and her whole story because I think she deserves that..Please tell me if I have to say more about that, to fix the problem.

2) I am going to find more sources foe your other two noticies about Early life and other activities...

Thanks Georgelgreco (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn: I forgot to ping you above Georgelgreco (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgelgreco: WP:COI is not only concerned about familial relationships, but other ones as well. The fact that you've chosen to highlight that fact and omit anything else is rather extremely suspect. If she's hired you to be her biographer and photographer, that sounds closer to the policy on WP:PAID editing than just a simple COI, which is not just community guideline but a Wikimedia Foundation policy and you are required to disclose this. Please do so on your userpage. Thank you, Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn: No no. she din't hire me...I do that for free because I believe to her abilities Georgelgreco (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn: Please tell me what exactly to disclose in my page and I will do that.... Georgelgreco (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Go to User:Georgelgreco.
2. Top right hand corner, click Create source.
3. Copy and paste {{paid|employer=Eleanna Finokalioti (Eleanna Fin)}} to the page.
4. Click the blue Publish page link at the bottom.

Thank you kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn: i did that...Can you see it?? Georgelgreco (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Georgelgreco: yes, thank you. You are now in compliance with the Wikimedia policy on paid editing.

Small note, I made a minor change, you can see that I did it using this link: Special:Diff/1258988038. I gave you the wrong parameter but the end result makes it look better. Compare Special:PermaLink/1258988038 with Special:Diff/1258987546. My apologies if this caused any confusion, sometimes Wikipedia templates trip up the best of us, but it should be fine now. If you are okay with it, no further action is required on your part on your user page.

I look forward to you addressing the maintenance tags on your draft.

All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn: Thank you very much....So after that are you able please to remove the first notice (A major contributor to this article appears to have...etc) on my article?? Georgelgreco (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That actually butts up on the edge of my knowledge, I will be honest with you @Georgelgreco. I'm going to give a tentative answer below and invite the editor who tagged it to weigh in here, @DoubleGrazing.

On one hand, it no longer "appears" and the appropriate template is now on the talk page.

On the other hand, the page still needs to be checked for neutrality. But that's why it's in the draft space.

I'm inclined to wait before making any action. Rest assured however, that because you've followed the correct procedure and that it will be reviewed before being published, the message won't be placed on the article once reviewed and published at AFC. Sorry I don't have a better answer for you right now. My suggestion would be to focus on the citation issues, the rest will eventually fall into place. There is no rush to these things. —Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Bobby Cohn. The draft might still need cleanup, but now that the COI has been disclosed, I'm happy to remove that tag.

Thanks for the disclosure, @Georgelgreco. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, was going to remove the tag, but Timtrent is always two steps ahead of me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing I follow from the front! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn:I am working now to our other two notices about 1) Early life and Education and 2) Other Activities..and I do my best to follow 100% all what you want about me...

@DoubleGrazing: Thanks for what you wrote...If there is anything else I have to do by my side please tell me... Georgelgreco (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn: I can see now this:

This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.

What means cleanup?? Can I remove it with editing by myself? Georgelgreco (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgelgreco: don't remove banners that you haven't placed or addressed. The key phrase is "may require". Rest assured that once accepted, it will mean that your draft has been checked and the tag will be removed before your article is published. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be scrupulously fair, a reviewer may decide, even with the banner present, that it stands a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process (assuming notability is verified), and may accept it as a borderline case. In that case that banner would remain. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here I sit, wearing my rose-coloured glasses, 20-odd replies later pondering the philosophy of AfC, the intersection of N and NOT, and their impacts at AfD. Someone better give me another task before I'm lost to a self-reflective rabbit hole. Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love it!

I suppose the simple explanation is that AFC takes out the trash and lets good potential material through, while making mistakes.

By design, but not always by implementation by all reviewers, it is intended to be helpful, encouraging, and also an optional gatekeeper.

The wild west days when pretty much anything could end up in mainspace also had paradoxically less pressure on AfD

Your new task is to ponder the extra intersection of N and NOT with K and KNOT 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're doing well! I was wondering if you could help me get started with editing my article about Jack Rechcigl. Would it be okay if I start by revising just a few paragraphs to make sure I’m following your guidance correctly? Also, I wanted to clarify something you mentioned earlier about the references being his works. I think I might have misunderstood—some of the books I cited are actually by his father, Miloslav Rechcigl, Jr. (or Mila Rechcigl). Should I avoid mentioning Mila Rechcigl's books in the article? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Thanks, Claudia AgroLover (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AgroLover, yes, please do continue to make improvements to the draft article. It has been a while so I while have to refresh my recollection and look at the draft again; it strikes me as odd to use a source authored by the subject's father in reference about the subject, but nonetheless I will take a fresh look at it shortly. In the meantime, I would suggest you review Help:Your first article and WP:42; and I always recommend background reading WP:Writing Wikipedia articles backward to those making revisions to drafts.

Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AgroLover, I have some early thoughts and I'll use this space to keep track of my thinking.

1. There are a lot of unsourced paragraphs. AfC editors often struggle to ensure that sources are not bombarded or things are not referenced correctly—especially in a biography of a living person—when the draft doesn not use citations throughout. I think the draft would be greatly improved quickly and with little effort by ensuring that all paragraphs are cited. If you don't have a citation for something, cut it. This is explained better in the essay WP:BACKWARD, as pointed to above.
2. There's definitely some WP:CITEKILL here. Once a fact has been verified once, it doesn't need another citation. Two is fine if you're trying to show consensus or a controversial fact. Anything more is gilding the lily. See my earlier comment about AfC reviewers, sometimes we can be a finicky bunch to understand, and this looks like you're trying to sneak something past us.
3. I'm going to give an example of a more problematic issue. See § Florida Agricultural Expo, this section is arguably more about the expo than the subject Dr. Rechcigl himself. Add facts about the subject and maybe some explanations about the history and how the subject's story intertwinds with it, but don't use the space to promote or explain the history of the Florida Agricultural Expo. Most of that section could be cut. This is just an example, but an editing philosophy that should be applied to the entire article.
4. The international section suffers from quite a few issues: it is largely unsourced and mostly promotional. Again, only write things that have been covered by other sources. If it wasn't and you've written about this because it was your knowledge or someone else told it to you, cut it. If it isn't documented in a source, it doesn't serve our readers to write about it here, and this is the largest section that gave me reason to believe this draft was written backwards. Instead, start by collecting sources that do speak about the subject's international work and then summarise those and cite to them. In doing so, you will naturally find that the writing is less promotional and be more suitable for it's inclusion in a well-sourced encyclopedia. A by-product of which is that you will have helped in demonstrating the subject's notability (see WP:Notability, more specifically WP:NPROF), and prevented the article from being excluded by our WP:NOT policy.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]