User talk:Philsome

Welcome!

Hello, Philsome, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Johntex\^talk 21:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:9DA1EAD6-F6AE-D93F-3C632EB78306E779.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:9DA1EAD6-F6AE-D93F-3C632EB78306E779.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 03:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Please do not revert to previous entry for "Benjamin Cohen" again as the presence of five possible names for "Ben Cohen" or "Benjamin Cohen" justifies the existence of a disambiguation page as established.JudyRobinson 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Benjamin Cohen

You need to respect that other Ben Cohens are equally important to Wikipedia. If you want to edit that entry for ""Benjamin Cohen (British journalist)"" - do that. But please do not revert this page again.

Regarding Benjamin Cohen disambiguation

(corrected disambiguation page - there are 3 ben cohens and 2 benjamin cohens in wikipedia. Users can validly be expected to be looking for any one of these when searching for this article's name). The wikipedia community voted to keep the article. The disambiguation is a completely different issue and despite any one person's view of who is "obscure" the point here is clarity for users of the wikipedia project - not the profile of one individual's entry. If it is notable for inclusion and there can be confusion for users disambiguation rules apply. See WP:D JudyRobinson 10:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third and Fourth opinions regarding Benjamin Cohen disambiguation as from Talk:Benjamin_Cohen page

Third opinion

I came here from a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Addressing some comments above:

The Wikipedia community never "voted to keep the page as is." They voted to allow the page to remain on Wikipedia rather than deleting it. Pages on Wikipedia are never static, so keeping it "as is" is meaningless.
The proper way to organize biography articles with the same name is to use a disambiguation page. It is also proper to reference that disambiguation page at the beginning of each article that the disambig page points to. It is not correct to use one article as a disambiguation resource for another. This violates WP:NPOV by implying that Wikipedia places greater importance on one biography over another.
My recommendation is to move this article to "Benjamin Cohen (journalist)" and convert this Benjamin Cohen article into a redirect page, redirecting "Benjamin Cohen" to Benjamin Cohen (disambiguation) -Amatulic 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- In process following third and fourth opinions. JudyRobinson 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also came from the third opinion page; and I agree with Amatulic; this should be a disambiguation page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Philsome comment on User_talk:JudyRobinson

Why is it that your sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be attempting to edit articles relating to Benjamin Cohen. For a so called new user, whose first and only topics you seem to Cohen, you appear to know a lot about Wikipedia.Philsome 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually came here researching the other Benjamin Cohen (the monetary systems expert) for an assignment and found what I discovered about Benjamin Cohen (the journalist) entries to seem out of proportion to my perception of his importance compared to the Professor's. There are a lot of other topics that interest me of course - but I'm actually quite busy at present too - so dealing with this has been the first thing I have done on Wikipedia. (I also love Lost In Space so had a v v small thing there too.) It seems odd that Philsome cares so much about one particular entry for the UK journalist. You might look back over many months of entries by Philsome - quite clearly not a new user, but the entries almost always seem quite focused on Benjamin Cohen, or related topics like Channel 4 news or Pink News. JudyRobinson 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Philsome further comment on User_talk:JudyRobinson

Re: your message, if you look clearly, I'm interested in a variety of LGBT topics so these figure. As does Chris Smith, Boyz, G-A-Y, Steven Twigg and the other pieces I have written on. Benjamin Cohen is an increasingly well known LGBT journalist in Britain and someone I am interested in. http://www.channel4.com/news/about_us/meet-the-team/benjamin-cohen.html Philsome 00:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be Philsome but by what I see on your contributions page most, I think much more than half, of all Philsome entries all relate to this one person Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) which seems odd from a WP:NPOV and WP:COI point of view. I am just new, and actually quite pleased i have learned enough to make you question my newness, but I unfortunately got caught up unwittingly in what was a quite aggressive attempt by you to keep all people like me typing "Benjamin Cohen" always landing on your page - which is really annoying to people who are using wikipedia to research information. Your aggression on that issue, and now this afternoon on attacking me, makes me feel very wary of you as a fellow user, and I now wish my studies had not brought me into contact with you. I can happily go and edit other topics as my experience of wikipedia increases but the way you conduct yourself I personally find quite disturbing. If this one guy is so important to the world, why are you mainly the one that seems to edit this entry? Really odd to me but maybe I just don't know how this place functions yet JudyRobinson 01:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to always push Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) above other entries

I see from earlier remarks made here and elsewhere about you that you seem to have made something of a career out of pushing this one article forward in differing ways. Your amendments today based on middle names is trite - the policy so far as I can make out from Wikipedia guidelines is that the correct alphabetizing is via article name, not by the middle name of a person who may be the subject of that article. In any case, the US professor has a middle name of "Jerry" - so even your erroneous attempt to put Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) above the others would still not succeed. What is it about your relationship with this one person that makes you try to always push this one individual's cause? I have my own suspicions based on your consistent actions but I can only ask you to stop doing this. You are wasting yours, and much more importantly, my time with these actions. I suspect your actions may be related to trying to achieve search engine prioritisation for the UK TV person and that is not a purpose of Wikipedia - i would think it is likely an abuse. So please stop doing this time and again.AgnethaFaltskog 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:C4Cohen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:C4Cohen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Channel4publicitycohen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Channel4publicitycohen.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your usual favorable edits to Benjamin Cohen (British journalist)

It would be easier to accept your last revert if your documented history was not always, consistently, one that favors the article on this individual. I want to respect WP:NPOV and WP:AGF with you - but your editing history makes that difficult.

Benjamin Cohen - the subject of this article is by no means a saint, and has a somewhat colorful past.

It is utterly not the job of us on this encyclopedia to make Mr Cohen look good, but, rather, to document his honest verified history - despite your obvious misgivings.

That may well include some facts that he himself might prefer were not included in this encyclopedia. That is not the job of Wikipedia - which is not a PR agency for any subject.

Even one your edits suggest that you seem to be very close to. --Satellite9876 (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Shughescohen.jpg

The file File:Shughescohen.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]