User talk:Bobby Cohn/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Your GA nomination of Parental rights movement

The article Parental rights movement you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Parental rights movement for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FishLoveHam -- FishLoveHam (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi FishLoveHam: responding here after the closure, I didn't want to give the impression the GAN review stress was a result of your pushing, it was entirely an externality that caused me to not be able to focus on writing and improving something that deserves attention, especially if the concern was neutrality. I want to do right by the article and I do plan on improving it, It is a wonderful world has requested that I inform them when I make the suggested changes, I will and I will probably look for feedback before submitting it as a GAN again. Thank you for your attention to the review. All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, I understand that's why you weren't able to address the bigger concerns and just wanted to make sure I wasn't pressuring you. I'm sorry the nomination didn't work out, but I enjoyed working with you and I wish you luck in the future. FishLoveHam (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

We meet again

And the flow is inspiring!

That editor needs either to work within our policies or to go. Thank you for reporting them to AIV 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This is absolutely hilarious because I was debating leaving you a note about how I was feeling particularly inspired. I was aware of the history of this editor and the topic at this title, that's why your talk page archives make an appearance at AIV. I agree one hundred percent: if you want to come here to hawk something, at least do it with a veneer of respect for our policies and those of us who will have to sift through it. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I noticed your deep dive into the archives!

Regrettably Monsieur Rayer has chosen to disregard any advice to act, exemplified by his not opting to flag his doppelgänger account and ask for it to be blocked. Were he to listen and to get it right I would have no objections at all.

I enjoy a good helping of Wikihilarity. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Reason why my article should not be declined

Hello, Bobby Cohn thank you for reaching out.

I wish to declare that I have no conflict of interest and have never been paid or compensated for any articles I have edited on Wikipedia.

I have been a passionate contributor for few years, driven by my desire to ensure that important topics are accurately represented on the platform.

As a lecturer at a reputable university, writing is one of my passions. I have authored textbooks on various subjects and contributed to multiple publications in reputable journals.

Regarding the current topic, I live in a community with several beneficiaries of the OCI Foundation. It was through their activities and impact in my area that I became aware of the organization.

My research on the foundation is what informed my contributions to the topic on Wikipedia.

I wish to emphasize again that I have never received any compensation, cash gifts, or incentives for this write-up, nor do I personally know the management of the foundation.

Please feel free to reach out if you need any further clarification.

I look forward to continuing my contributions to Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Charles Nsugbe (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Charles Nsugbe, all of your drafts have been repeatedly deleted as they appear to be advertisments. Instead, if you wish to continue writing articles, first, read Help:Your first article. Then collect secondary, reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in depth. Then, summarise what those sources say and cite your sources inline, follow the instructions on WP:REFB. Don't add more than what the sources say. Do not try to embellish the subject. That will result in your draft being deleted again. You've been previously warned on your talk page about using Wikipedia as promotional service. I suggest you stop this behaviour so you do not end up blocked. Thank you, Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Karin Van Der Laag

I guess I had forgotten about the deletion discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Van Der Laag, feel free to re-list it for WP:AFD it is clearly border line and I have no problem with it either way. Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I will not quarrel with a listing at AfD either. I also feel it to be borderline. The community is usually better at making a decision than any reviewer, though it sometimes reaches bizarre conclusions. I will not participate in any discussion, I feel I am involved. It will be kept or deleted by will of the community. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong and Timtrent: I didn't want to do a drive-by AfD nom, I did need some time to assess and conduct a proper BEFORE. Appreciate your help and the eyes on the article/its history. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Definitely close to the borderline. I appreciate your time taken in research. A 12 year period acting a seemingly major soap opera character ought to be notable. Yet if she is notable why are there no better sources?

It will be interesting to see which side of the line the community decides 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

For what it's wroth, I had a belief that it had a better than, 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process, and mentioned that to Theroadislong. This is now that immediate deletion process, and the outcome will be informative. That is the challenge, the dilemma, with borderline drafts. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was kind of the same mind when reviewing the sources. (Based on the quality of the sources, I wouldn't have given those exact odds, though ). Your thoughts along the line of 'it's up to the community to decide now' is more or less how I felt too, I didn't think this was necessarily within the scope of a good-faithed {{db-g13}}. I agree with your rationale as explained in this edit summary: if someone is going to make a claim to it, it's better that more eyes see it as opposed to languishing at AfC draftspace. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The challenge is that it is wished very much (by the subject) for it to be an article. This discussion will not remove that wish, but it will draw a line under the article's existence or not in the short term future. Either way Wikipedia is improved. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

See, I was debating whether or not to include the fact that it is an autobiography in the AfD nom ... —Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I imagine someone else will. This way you are critiquing the article, not the genesis of the article 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I see lack of consensus. Please see my re-listing comment. The creating editor deserves a decision in my view. Delaying by resisting costs nothing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This is difficult. It's coming down to, for me, whether to withdraw on account of the SAFTA award, which as I'm looking up and trying to verify, does not exactly scream to me as a "well-known and significant award or honor". I did find an article from news24.com but the limited coverage of the event doesn't seem to induce confidence. Similar to your comment on "A 12 year period acting a seemingly major soap opera character ought to be notable. Yet if she is notable why are there no better sources?" (emphasis yours). On the other hand, it looks like Trevor Noah hosted the award in 2009? Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, to your closing comment, I will at least make an argument to that stance in the AfD to pay the article its deserved attention. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not too sure how steadfastly you feel beholden to your declared neutrality (or how much you may even say after relisting the AfD) but @Theroadislong and @Timtrent, you are two editors whose opinion I value greatly: if there is anything to suggest my analysis is wrong, or you have a hint as to the importance of the South African Film and Television Awards, I would greatly appreciate it. It feels like to me if this is going to clear WP:N, it will do so on the back of the SAFTA award. (At least that's what I am ready to base my withdrawal on.) But don't feel like you need respond, I promise to not read into your silence. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I must remain neutral. I have been very closely involved with seeking to guide the creating editor. By all reasonable criteria I am involved here, though I believe that this involvement does not prevent my relisting the discussion, including any putative future relisting(s)

I believe you should not withdraw, at least without evidence that you proposed this in error. I do not think there is, certainly at present. If it materialises then I agree that dignified withdrawal is wholly appropriate.

It is important that there is a full, free consensus. It does hinge on the SAFTA award. If the receipt of the award can be proven I think the subject has earned their place here. If it cannot be proven then I have strong doubts, regardless of the length of time she was playing that part in that soap opera, simply because a ket tenet of Wikipedia is WP:V.

At the end of this deletion discussion, whenever that occurs, I hope we will have (as a community) a clear consensus to keep or to delete. That will improve Wikipedia either way, and will allow any "Surely I deserve an article!" arguments to be settled, for either Ms KVDL does or does not deserve an article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I have left a considered Neutral comment at the deletion discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this is now making positive progress towards a potentially meaningful decision

If your note about possible curtness was addressed to me, I did not see any. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and I share your sentiment that it would be best to determine something one way or the other. I think the extensive analysis of our SNG and N policy was well argued in favor of a redirect, and that solution articulated well my concerns about the article, the subject, and the sources thereof.

I am glad that no offense was interpreted; strictly textual communication sometimes leaves the door open for misinterpretation, and I wanted to be sure that when dealing with a sensitive topic such as the notability of a BLP, I was clear.

Thank you @Timtrent for your dedicated attention to this article. I know sometimes people bemoan the bureaucracy that is the back-end of Wikipedia, but in this instance I think we are progressing well. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I am less concerned with the article than with absolute fairness to this (and any) creating editor acting in good faith. I hope she sees the discussion and says "I disagree, but I see the fairness in the discussion" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No-one can possibly say that the discussion is unfair. It has good argument based on policy, and I feel a conclusion is reachable 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That was definitely one of the most policy heavy AfDs I've participated in in a while. I think that got as fair of a shake as could have been asked, you can't argue that those who !voted against keep didn't do their research beforehand. Hopefully the author/subject will respect the community's time. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

All rather confusing the Karin Van Der Laag article says that “In 2011, she won a SAFTA Award for her work on the show” but the South African Film and Television Awards article shows no such award. You are correct I think, that notability rests on this being a notable award..but we seem to be missing significant coverage of anything about her really. Theroadislong (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong I see "Isidingo also won the Best Ensemble award in a TV soapie category and the Best Actress in a TV Drama statuette went to Karin van der Laag (Maggie)" in Sowetan Live, but would prefer to see it in a better source, and wit significvant coverage.

I see "The Final Cut is hosted by actor and presenter Lawrence Maleka while resident judges include SAFTA award winning actress and casting director Karin Van Der Laag, actress and film director Mmabatho Montsho and filmmaker and Director Thabang Moleya." in YMZ as a passing mention

I see "In 2011, her outstanding portrayal of Maggie earned her the prestigious SAFTA Award for Best Actress in a TV Soap, solidifying her status as one of South Africa’s most celebrated soapie actresses." from The South African, a longish article about her, but a throwaway line.

However in the News 24 article 2011 Saftas: The TV winners I do not see Karin Van Der Laag receiving a mention.

While I have a preference for News 24 (for no good reason save the title 'News 24'), may I discount the other three? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:58, 15 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)

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

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)