User talk:Bobby Cohn

Click here to leave me a new message.

A Big House by the Lake

Hello Bobby, Cecimonster vs Donka's 4th A Big House By The Lake album redirects to the bands page, I believe it had some references, I can put new ones if Wikipedia needs it. thanks,

ps: but i dont know if it dissapeared completely or I need to do it from scratch, thanks Srapostrock (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Srapostrock, someone has blanked and redirected it (WP:BLAR) likely because it was tagged for notability. I have restored it for now, so that you may continue to work on it, but please continue to add references and content to improve the article. Otherwise, the next step may be a deletion discussion. I have asked the editor to give you some time to work on it.

Note that one of the concerns with the existing reference may have been the independence of the source. It was an interview (see WP:INTERVIEW), which often don't aid in demonstrating notability. Please continue to add sources such that the album meets one of the requirements of WP:NALBUM. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Done

I added more references for the album, thanks Bobby! Srapostrock (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Srapostrock: given that it has been blanked and redirected again, it is advisable to actually write content about the subject in the article as opposed to simply leaving references. I would suggest for the album stubs you write, create a "Reception" section and summarize how the article was reviewed in three different independent and reliable sources that demonstrate non-trivial coverage of the subject.

You may find this advice applicable to more than one of the album stubs you have written about. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Braveland Conference

I wanted to get some more information from you on what type of sources you're looking for. The information presented in my article came mostly from newspaper clippings and high school yearbooks (most of which state the year they joined the conference or show standings to that effect). I compare what I wrote to the Parkland Conference page, and there are only two citations listed. It also has a comparative lack of narrative to what I presented, could that be the problem? Please advise. Moserjames79 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Moserjames79, you're actually in a really good spot if everything is sourced from newspapers and yearbooks as you say (this would directly address my WP:OR concerns if you aren't publishing original research yourself but merely summarising the things you've found from researching old sources). To remedy the issue, in the article following the narrative that you've written (that I'm assuming to be a summary of the sources) or statements of fact, simply cite those newspaper articles or books as you have with the online sources.

We have details about this in WP:OFFLINE, but please be as specific as possible when citing things, including name of publication/journal/newspaper, authors, date, etc. The yearbook one is interesting, but the same advice applies, give title, chapter/page, etc, as much as possible. Let me know if you need more guidance on this, my recomendation to new editors is to always follow the WP:INTREF3 guideline as it follows an easy popup style box that you can fill, and it will format it properly, but this will require that you not use the VisualEditor, something that can be changed in your preferences.

Regarding the other article, it is best not to rely on previously published material to be the standard of the work on the project, in essence: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you do want to follow along or use a guide, other editors have written 2009 Big Ten Conference football season, which is listed as a Good article, or 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, which is listed as a Featured article. But a Good article or a Featured article can be quite the challenge and is not what is asked of you when submitting a draft for review. However, the example article you've described above is tagged for WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability, the same issues I'm trying to address with your draft. If subjects can't be proven notable, the remedy is deletion and if the material isn't cited, it's possible other editors may challenge and remove it, see WP:PROVEIT.

Thanks for coming to ask, I'm always happy to help. My goal probably aligns with your goal, I want to see your draft published; I also want to make sure it's done right. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask! Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Moserjames79, just to give you an update on the status of your draft review, I've asked for some advice on the reliable sources noticeboard, see the section § The use of yearbooks as a source for an external but related organization as I mentioned that I am unfamiliar with this specific issue. Hopefully this will provide us with an answer and/or more specific guidance moving forward. There's nothing more for you to do in this moment, I thought I would simply keep you apprised of the latest as it relates to the draft. All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this, hopefully we get some clarification out of this so I can better prepare the other conference histories I have in the queue. Moserjames79 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

SAKE CHALLENGES

File:SAKE CHALLENGES.jpg

SAKE CHALLENGES

Dear Bobby Cohn,

I hope you are well.

Regarding the article SAKE CHALLENGES, I was wondering if it is okay now and if I could also add a logo

Thank you very much,

Kind regards,

Waxilo

Waxilo (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Waxilo, the licensing description on the file you uploaded at File:SAKE CHALLENGES.jpg says this is your own work. Is this true, did you create this logo? Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem I see with the file/issue present here are: it is the same as seen on the Sake Challenges website. Therefore:

1. If you did create the logo and have an affiliation with the Sake Challenges website, you'll need to declare your WP:Conflict of interest. This should be done on your user page and, depending on your role in the organization, you'll need to declare your contributions as PAID. This can be done with our {{paid}} template, again on your userpage. You should also make sure that even though you created the logo, you still control the copyright and didn't release it to the Sake Challenges organization and have the authority to upload and release it under the CC BY SA 4.0 as you have. As far as I can tell, I don't see a release on the organization website, all I see is a copyright assertion: "© 2024 Sake Sommelier Association". The organization will need to release it at the source so that it can be verified to have been released, or you may reach out to the WP:VRT to make sure they have a record on file of the release from the company, you can see more at Wikipedia:Contact us/Licensing.
2. If you haven't created the logo or you no longer actually own the copyright to it and don't have the authority to release it, you may have erred in describing the licensing when you uploaded the file. This will need to be remedied. You may be able to assert that the image is not protected by copyright, you can see the details with the {{PD-textlogo}} tag, but this is something you would need to assert on the page of the file, and may be beyond the scope of my knowledge.

To answer your original question, yes images may be used on draft pages but we need to make sure that things are done properly and not rushed. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much,

i will like to publish the article without logo for the moment.

is this possible? Waxilo (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Waxilo: The article is presently submitted and waiting to be reviewed. You'll have to wait for another reviewer to come along and take a look, it's not my practice to take rereviews on request. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Bobby Cohn,

I understand sorry for any inconvenience.

Kind regards

Waxilo Waxilo (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Waxilo, no apology needed. I'm more than happy to provide guidance and answer questions as best I can. All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

Have a wonderful day.

Kind regards,

Waxilo Waxilo (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Jack Rechcigl

Hi Bobby, I was working on another project and just had the chance to return to my article. I noticed it's been moved to "Draft", so I wanted to check in about the best way for me to continue editing. Can I still work on it in my sandbox? Could you please lmk where to go? Also, I was wondering if it would be alright to start by revising just part of the article and send that over for feedback —just to ensure I’m on the right track— before working on the full rewrite. Let me know what you think. Thanks so much for your help! AgroLover (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AgroLover, you can continue to work on it in the draft namespace, the link for it is at Draft:Jack Rechcigl. The reason it was moved is that it is typical for drafts that are in a user's sandbox to be moved to the draft namespace once submitted for approval at WP:Articles for Creation, this is what happened when you hit that blue submit button. If you'd prefer, I can move it to your sandbox but it will likely be moved back again once you submit it again. It's best for drafts to be in one spot so that others may come by and make edits and improvements to the article that they would not otherwise find hidden in a user's sandbox. Notice at the mainspace location Jack Rechcigl there is a banner that says "There is a draft of this article at Draft:Jack Rechcigl." You'll note that others have changed some content in the draft.

It would be best to continue to adapt the article as it currently exists, however you have touched on something as the reason editors will find it difficult to revise a draft. I'm not saying it's necessarily the case here, but sometimes people will write backwards (see our essay WP:BACKWARDS). You'll note the advice there is to be liberal and not afraid to leave things on the cutting room floor and to build it back up, and use the summary style voice in being sure to write only about what sources have said. However, writing about academics is a more difficult project because they have their own notability criteria.

I'm sorry I can't advise you more specifically. I will give the draft another look, it has been a while for me. Let me know if you have more specific questions and I'd be happy to help. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Billy Cowie

You reviewed this page and made some suggestions. Fair enough. I put a lot more work into it adding lots of references etc and now it has simply been deleted??? Dancematters (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Dancematters: it looks like it was deleted as it was considered unambiguous advertising or promotion. In addition, the deleting administrator noted a possible WP:COI and described the page as a self written vanity page. I can't speak to what the page looked like after your most recent changes, I did not see it. But my suggestion to most editors who this happens to is to start over from scratch and be sure to write neutrally and only describe what has been said about the subject by independent, secondary and reliable sources. Read Help:Your first article and follow the directions exactly.

With that said, if you are the subject of the draft (given the suspicion based on the content of your draft and your username "Dancematters") my suggestion would be to not write a Wikipedia article about yourself. See the reasons why at WP:Autobiography.

Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to increase the woeful lack of choreographers on wikipedia and had planned a whole series on major figures who are not represented. the page in its second form was completely neutral and only relied on third party sources (over thirty) my suspicion is that wikipedia editors have no experience of dance and its importance. I would be grateful if you could request to see the page and give a second opinion. to suggest starting from scratch after many hours have been put in is I think unreasonable. Dancematters (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dancematters: if you truly believe the deletion was made in error and the page was non-promotional, then you may request it be undeleted or contest its deletion. My advice to all editors when doing this: be polite and stick to arguing the facts, avoid attacking other editors as it won't help your cause.

In regard to your raison d'etre, there's two things wrong here:

1. Don't come on here assuming everyone else knows nothing. We have many a article about dance topics, they are indexed in at Category:Dance—Wikipedia welcomes your (neutral) contributions but to start from a place that everyone else is an idiot is hostile and will not get you very far on a collaborative project like Wikipedia.
2. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs: if you argue as much as the reason your article should be created, it will only increase the suspicion of your COI and reduce the liklihood that your draft is returned to you or a new draft eventually accepted.

Instead, look at the policy page Wikipedia:Notability and see that there are really only two things required for an article to be accepted: the subject is notable and the article is not precluded by our WP:NOT policy. With those two things in mind, start writing your article trying to demonstrate notability (see WP:NPEOPLE) and make sure it is not promotional.

Good luck, Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft for Internationalist Communist Tendency and CC BY 3.0

Hi Bobby, I saw that the draft for this page has been rejected again and the reason given was that there has been a copyright violation. I'm not sure which content you were referring to in particular, as I am no longer able to view the previous edits, but in all fairness I probably wouldn't know even with access to that as my contributions to that draft are minor in comparison to the work of other users. I contributed more to the CWO article, which seems to have more English-language sources written about it.

However, I think you may be mistaken about there being any copyright violation at all. It appears that the content on the page you linked to (https://www.leftcom.org/en/node/36775) is licensed with CC BY 3.0. In fact, this is stated explicitly on the same page: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License", with a link to the license on the Creative Commons website. I'm not sure if it has always been like that or if they've changed it since the draft has been rejected, but given it's a fairly old license then I would assume the former.

I'm not that familiar with all these different licences or copyright in general (I always try to use my own works or turn to Wikimedia Commons to avoid making errors), but this looks to me like there has been no copyright violation whatsoever? Like I said, I cannot recall or check what the draft looked like, but if the content on the leftcom website was in the public domain or licensed under CC BY 3.0 to begin with, then is that not acceptable on Wikipedia (even if some of the other users paraphrased or copied segments verbatim from there) as long as due credit is given? --Pitsarotta (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Pitsarotta: it appears you're right, at least from what I'm able to gather in regards to what is still visible. It's possible both myself and the hiding admin missed it (if it was there at the time and hasn't been added since, might be able to be confirmed with an archive, not sure if it's still down right now, and not even worth the check, it's besides the point currently). But without having access to the page history to be able to exactly verify, like you I would make the same assumption given the breadcrumbs you've gathered. It would likely be worth it to have the hiding administrator (@Nthep) take a look at and unhide the past revisions if they are solely from that site. If it were to be incorporated again, it would be best to leave a {{cc-notice}} at the page as well.

With that said, I faintly remember thinking the content was of dubious value when it was incorporated, and not likely very encyclopedic to be in a draft. In general, Wikipedia ought NOT host party platforms all the same. But good catch nonetheless, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a version of the page as late as June 6, prior to my revision, contains a form of the CC licence. Mea culpa I suppose. Thanks for catching that. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to re-include the material, then fine but it needs to be attributed. Copying material covered by a CC licence and not attributing it breaches the licence and makes the copying a copyvio. Nthep (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Bobby Cohn and Nthep, thank you both for looking into this and responding. I cannot remember what the page was like before that content was removed, plus I don't think I know enough about this organisation to contribute much to the article, but I will probably let some of the other users know on their talk page as they might be interested. Thanks again. --Pitsarotta (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Natural Health News

Hello, Bobby Cohn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Natural Health News".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Bobby Cohn,

I realize you didn't write this draft, another editor took a redirect you created from moving an article and built an article on top of it. But, according to Twinkle, you are the draft creator, hence this message. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Liz, no worries. I'm pretty active at AFC and AFC/R as well as closing RMs, so I get these from time to time. I understand that it's just the mediawiki software keeping track of who first published the page; the notifications don't bother me. Most times if it isn't relevant to me, I'll just the revert the message here to keep down on clutter.

Thanks for keeping a sharp eye out though! All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Desh Pal S. Verma Biography- Inappropriate inline WP:External links will need to be corrected or moved

 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)

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)

DYK for Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs

On 7 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Manhood was Josh Hawley's second book to be published by Regnery, after he was dropped by Simon & Schuster for his support of attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hurricane Debby (2024)#Requested move 30 October 2024

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)

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)

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)

Article Recommendation

Thanks for the recommendation to merge my article with another one. It has been really helpful and I am grateful you gave me the recommendation. I have currently merged the my article with the one you recommended. Infoadder95 (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)