User talk:Bobby Cohn

Archives and other talk page banners.

Archives: Index 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 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.

What was rationale for this move request failing? The majority of oppose arguments were predicated on a poorly formulated argument which did not actually argue against the rationale to support the move. Move requests are not supposed to be simple vote tallies, but are meant to consider the strength of arguments. 122141510 (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @122141510, you are correct in that closures are not vote tallies, and I would appreciate if you didn't insinuate that were the case here. My closing procedure, both in this case and in general, involve both (1) trying to evaluate the general consensus in the discussion and (2) giving due weight to both sides of the discussion and not discarding the less popular arguments out of hand. As it applies to this closure, I found (1) that there was general consensus against the move and (2) that in a point-counterpoint style balancing test, I did find the arguments opposing the move sufficiently and convincingly addressed the move rational in closing the discussion. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to elaborate on that? Three of the oppose votes cite a 'per user', who talks past a bulk of evidence and support and actual citing of policy as rationale for the request, to insinuate some unfounded conjecture about 'marketing purposes'. 122141510 (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@122141510: I don’t know if I have more to expand on. So unless you have a specific question, I don’t have more to say. You’re welcome to take it to WP:Move review if you aren’t happy here. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Cleaning up after the move, you should not close any move if you are unwilling to do the necessary clean up tasks, including fixing any mistargeted wikilinks resulting from the move (only applies when the move involves a change to primary topic). Talk:Deadlock (computer science)#Requested move 13 August 2024. wbm1058 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Wbm1058: appreciate the note here. I thought I caught everything but reviewing now, I realized I missed the primary dab on the new primary topic, though someone else has gotten to that since. Normally I think I do catch that, it did unfortunately slip past me this time. Is that what you're referring to here, or is there something else I'm missing? Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a bot puts this template on a page, but I saw that you did that. Generally the WP:WikiProject Disambiguation editors don't like to see admins intentionally dumping hundreds of pages onto Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links without at least helping with that a little bit. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Okay, I'll admit I was not aware of this on the backend. I had seen others do it so I assumed it was okay as a part of the process. I will ensure to pay closer attention to this going forward. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you for your speedy assessment of the draft page I wrote. I was just wondering, if time and patience allow you, if you were willing to give the current revision a look. The citations should be in order. If you do, please let me know if there are any other issues. Kind regards. Mariomassone (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariomassone: Looks good, well done on the article! Bobby Cohn (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, Bobby Cohn,

Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate your guidance and want to make sure the article meets Wikipedia's standards. I put a lot of working hours into this submission, so I would really like to improve it. Since this is my first time writing an article, I could use some help. Regarding the picture, I already have another one I can use. Regarding the submission not being adequately supported by reliable sources, could you please provide examples of sources from my draft article that would be considered reliable, and which ones might not be? Additionally, could you offer some advice on how to avoid the article reading like an advertisement? While I understand the concern, my intention was not to promote the subject but to present information objectively. I want to ensure the content is neutral, well-sourced, and aligns with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability policies. Your assistance would be invaluable as I work on these revisions. Thank you. AgroLover (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AgroLover, I began to conduct copy-editing of the draft article removing the external links as advised in the comment I left. But presently there are whole paragraphs and sections that go uncited. These will need citations. Did you read the comment I left on the article in addition to the declination reason? Citation 51 is to a Gmail. That would be an example of something not being supported by a reliable source. Presently § University governance and service, § Asia, § Austrailia, § South America are entirely unsourced.

Then there is the problem of WP:Original research and WP:Neutral POV. Presently the article is written:

He has garnered international recognition for his innovative approaches to agriculture and urban environments, earning a reputation as a visionary leader. Rechcigl's tenure as a science administrator is distinguished by his exceptional leadership and commitment to advancing scientific endeavors in agriculture and environmental studies.

But the citations are entirely to things authored by the subject. You may use research items to support facts about the subject, but not promote the subject. Consider the difference between:

1. John Doe has conducted research in agronomy and ecology,^[1][2] and has published a patent for Unique Methodology 1.^[3]
2. John Doe is a world renowned genius in agronomy and ecology,^[1][2] and has transformed the way ecology research is conducted the world over.^[3]

You can't say the promotional part unless someone else has said that about the subject (see WP:Reliable, WP:Independent and WP:Secondary sources policy).

It looks like you've written the article WP:BACKWARDS. Instead, do the research first and collect what other sources have written about the subject, then summarize that research in WP:Summary style. See the guidance at Help:Your first article.

That would be my advice as a starting point to salvage the article. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobby,

Thank you for the copy-editing work you've started on the draft article. I appreciate the feedback and the guidance you've provided.

I did review your comment on the article and the declination reason. I understand the importance of adding proper citations, and I'll work on finding reliable sources to support the content in these sections.

Regarding Citation 51, I see that it is not appropriate I'll remove it and find a replacement.

I'll keep you updated as I make these changes. AgroLover (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bobby. I am attempting to submit a biography article for cinematographer, Adam J. Minnick. However, even with numerous references and clear notoriety, I am getting declined for publishing because it's reading "more like an advertisement" than an article. I have been making sure to use external references from multiple national publications that mention Minnick's work, but I keep getting the same sort of declined message. Is there some wording that you can see that is gating my publishing of this article? Thanks. Alichtenstein1! (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alichtenstein1!, you say "keep getting" declined but at the time of your message, the article had only been declined once. Is there another copy or version of the article? I can assist in so far as the article presently at Draft:Adam J. Minnick. The advice from the most recent reviewer points to WP:RS. You will note that things like IMDb and Letterboxd are not considered reliable. See WP:IMBd. Looking at the section #Early life and education, the first citations are to IMBd and then a generic Google search. Then the rest of the paragraph goes on uncited. This is a perfect example of something that needs to be cited. The policy for this is at WP:BLP and WP:IC.

In so far as the article reads promotional, consider the line "It was during these formative years that Minnick discovered the cinematography of..." This is neither neutral (WP:NPOV) or encyclopedic, and is also unsourced. Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be written in summary style and supposed to be boring in tone (and well-sourced), and if people find something interesting, it is the content that is supposed to speak for itself.

Is it possible you've just written what you know about subject without first looking for what reliable sources have said about the subject? Take a look at Help:Your first article and make sure you aren't writing your article WP:BACKWARDS. You will find it easier to write an article if all you set out to do is describe what sources have said about the article. When you do that, make sure the sources are WP:Reliable, WP:Independent, and WP:Secondary. Read and understand those policy pages, they will have more information than I can write in a reply. That is the proper (and easiest) way to write a Wikipedia article.

Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobby Cohn -- I wanted to mention that I may be opening a move review over the recently-closed discussion at Talk:Artms. While by pure !votes (8 support, 5 to five) there is arguably only a slight, there were no policy-based arguments raised to rebut the main question in play in the manual of style's direction around reflecting usage in sources -- arguments instead consisted solely of personal stances on why sources should not count or were otherwise inconsistent with the cited policies. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yaksar: can't say I'm surprised by this message. I would disagree with your assessment of the overall arguments presented, but otherwise you are welcome to open the MR. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're not surprised. It's the same flawed logic as the logic to close ESTOILE NAIANT, which also generate false consensus to opposed based on flawed arguments brought by a single editor. So why close it with flawed rationale? 122141510 (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what I've done to be the recipient of your ire: twice now after leaving messages on my talk page you've immediately gone to your user page to add addendums to your diatribe and call me and other editors here "incompetent" and "cognitively impaired to a medically diagnosable degree". You suggest that simply for closing a move discussion as "no consensus" that we "be rewarded with time in a penal colony, as it's also served to enable historical revisionism and as mentioned earlier, genocide denial." [1] Can't say I'm sure of the best way to respond to this kind of message.

Specifically, on your user page, you asked "So why not be able to explain the rationale for rejecting the move request by speaking to policy?" No such question was ever asked. And reviewers of my talk page will note that I am no stranger to re-opening and relisting RMs in light of convincing arguments. I said I was not surprised because, as was even noted by a commentator to the discussion, that the temperature in the RM was becoming a little heated and both sides had begun to talk past each other. So therefore when an editor left a note simply stating their intention to raise it at MR, a notice left on my page without a question to affirmatively respond to, I simply chose to point out what part of their assessment I disagreed with, but otherwise plainly acknowledged receipt of their message in a cordial way.

You again raise your concern with the Estoile Naiant conversation so I'll note I treated your discussion above much in the same manner: I gave my rational when asked but otherwise let sleeping dogs lie.

To answer your question, the fact of the matter is that both those in favor of and opposing the move request presented numerous arguments; some stronger than others on both sides. You dismiss others' arguments out of hand as not being policy based but I disagree, policy was referred to on both sides of the argument, and in closing I can ensure you that I had multiple tabs open and checking where the arguments aligned with policy and where they may have been simply related but not directly controlling in the discussion. I do so because, as I pointed out to you above, I assess consensus (or lack thereof in this instance) by evaluating all arguments and not dismissing anything out of hand, but also evaluating where editors agree and disagree on those policies and conducting an overall balancing test based on those principles. My closing procedure has not varied since you asked previously, and it lead me to this result in this instance.

I myself am indifferent to the result, and I oppose your characterization that I (as if I alone even could) rejected your move request. All I did was close a discussion as having no consensus. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So then what are the policy-based rationale that give the oppose side merits in these requests? You keep saying you're adhering to policy, but seem incapable of citing them. Then you play the same game a lot of editors do, hiding behind "no consensus" as if that's an acceptable rationale for anything.

"The title is wrong." / "Why is it wrong?" / "No consensus."

How does that make any sense? 122141510 (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, you participated in the RM and engaged with the different discussions yourself. I'm not going to summarize or give a timeline of the different arguments and participants. I am also not going to re-engage with those discussions with you, to do so would put me in the position of arguing for the oppose side because you don't see that other editors can have different opinions from yours and still be valid.

I'm also not arguing the title is wrong or policy is wrong—again, the policies that I am adhering to are the ones regarding closing discussions and determining consensus.

What I will tell you is that I evaluated:^[a]

• All the arguments around TM and TMRULES, and the different opinions and interpretations of those that supported and opposed the move;
• The extent to which COMMONNAME considers capitalization, and how editors thought it ought to apply here, as well as the guidance pages that offer advice on interpreting policy;
• The extent to which AT was the controlling policy, and the supporting pages such as TITLETM that offer interpretation;
• The concerns that editors had about the different sources provided, including—but not limited to—the origin language of the sources and the concerns that sources would be unfairly discounted because of language;
• Concerns editors had about capitalization and stylization as discussed in CAPS and ALLCAPS, and the meta-argument around that about what the threshold should be to meet the guidance of the main argument;
• The arguments about respecting biographical article's subjects as supported by IDENTITY and BIOEXCEPT;
• The arguments for and against treating the title as an acronym or an ABBR;
• The argument against the move because of consistency, and the rebuttals to that idea that capitalization stylization sometimes requires too much of a burden of overwhelming support sources, as well as the rebuttal that consistency is often over applied and the warnings in EMERSON;
• The accusations that capitalization would just be marketing and the meta-argument that who are we to decide which RS are independent or marketing machines for an industry as a whole;
• Even accusations that certain arguments did or did not apply to the discussion, and to a lesser extent, the idea that one side might be arguing ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT.

In considering and weighing^[b] the above, I found that:

• Both those arguing for and against the move presented stronger and weaker arguments, that
• Had no reason to be plainly discounted or ignored, such that
• Editors were not able to arrive at even a rough consensus, and
• Even following a previous realist, the conversation did not be appearing to go in the direction of one side garnering convincing support.

Again, I'm having a difficult time interpreting your question here—I don't think you're incapable of understanding what a no consensus closure is, and you participated actively in the discussion about the interpretations of the arguments so I know you know the other side presented those arguments. I would be happy to expand on any one or more of the points above if you'd like. Is there an argument that you think (1) I didn't properly consider or (2) ought to ignore on the oppose side? Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written by me much earlier in the English version (in 2023), based on the Polish version updated by me, than this page (which was created only in June 2024). I know the page, but I did not quote it, because it is prepared for the release of the new album. The band asked me not to post it on Wikipedia for now. Materials about MATLD are verified and 100% certain. I have full rights to the photos, I sent permissions to the Polish version of Wikipedia. The official website of the band will be cited only after the official release of the next album this year. It is still under development. Currently, talks are underway with the record companies, the material is already recorded and ready for release. Please post the article, because this is a strange action, to say the least. MKutera74 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[odpowiedz] I own the copyright to this text 100%. Please restore it and don't make problems!!!! MKutera74 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[odpowiedz] Where is my draft????? I worked on it for several months, taking into account suggestions and comments from previous editors!!! this is a complete lack of respect and understanding for the authors of the article! MKutera74 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[odpowiedz] MKutera74 (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MKutera74: if your timeline of events is accurate, then I think there are some misunderstandings of the copyright issues involved. If it was originally written on here, while you do own the copyright to it, you released it under the Creative Commons BY-SA License 4.0. Further, if that is the case, then the website listed in your speedy deletion G12 notification (www.matld.org/main.html) is falsely claiming copyright to the work. If it was originally written on Wikipedia, which should be easily proven by the page histories, then the band's website will need to adjust their copyright notice to one that is compatible with Wikipedia, or provide proper attribution. But it was the band's website's copyright notice that prompted this issue. You will need to discuss this issue with a Wikipedia administrator who will be able to examine the timeline proposed here and cross-reference it with the deleted page's edit history. Unfortunately, I cannot help you any further in that regard. Your band's website administrator may be able to assist by using the form and email at WP:Contact us; it sounds like you may have prior experience with this process.

In regards to your work with the band, because of your relationship, please review our WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid-contribution disclosure and please make any relevant declarations on your userpage. I've left a generic warning template on your user talk page as a record of this notice.

Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the Wikipedia draft was written prior to the creation of the website. As such the band website is mirroring the text and it is not a copyright infringement. That said, you note that "I own the copyright to this text 100%". Are you aware that by publishing this work to Wikipedia you are releasing it under license as BC explains above? There will be no copyright. You also need to explain in far more detail what you mean by sentences such as "The band asked me not to post it on Wikipedia for now." I see on your talk page that you claim "no financial or legal benefits" but you clearly have a close involvement with the band. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no financial or legal benefits from this. I only have the copyright, because I created and wrote this article myself, providing the sources. I am aware that I am transferring the copyright to Wikimedia Commons. Since about 2005/2006 I have been editing Miguel and the Living Dead for free on the Polish wiki. I have been interested in the music of this aesthetic for about 30 years (I have a lot of books, CDs, vinyls, cassettes, all original editions from all over the world). Finally I updated it and decided that it is worth making an English version for MATLD. I have been following the band for years and going to their concerts. I know their biographies very well. I know the musicians (by the way, I know many Polish bands, including some musicians personally, but I decided that there should be an English version for MATLD, because the line-up has become international and the band has played and continues to play with international bands not only in Poland). I sent them the translation and they asked if they could put it on the new page, so I said ok. How could I know that this would be a conflict. I am not their manager. Their page was created by someone else, I don't know this person at all. I just found out by accident that MATLD is being revived and decided to write an article. I regret all this hard work since October 2023 and unfortunately I didn't write this draft in the rough draft. Please help me with this somehow. MKutera74 (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted Draft:Miguel and the Living Dead based on the mistaken G12. Please add a section to the talk page of the draft explaining your involvement and the creation of the website, so that future reviewers understand. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

big thanks to you Pickersgill-Cunliffe. Of course I'll explain everything:) MKutera74 (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MKutera74: I will add that the tools that commonly check for copyright violation may continue to pick up this draft as an issue, so I would still strongly recommend reaching out to the band in the same way I recommended before and ensuring that they provide the correct attribution on their website. They would still be falsely claiming the copyright to your work. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for the correct way they could provide attribution. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Bobby MKutera74 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote about it in the draft discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Miguel_and_the_Living_Dead MKutera74 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to review my draft of this article, and let me know of any improvements I can make. As you know, I've had difficulty publishing this draft previously so I'd like to get it right. Henrybardklein (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Henrybardklein, I don't typically do reviews upon request, but I am happy to conduct some simple copy editing. I'll let you know. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrybardklein there are a few outstanding sections and claims that are unsourced. I've tagged them as such. I've also conducted copy editing to bring the article closer inline with our WP:Manual of Style. The biggest thing remaining however, is you cite to "Ibid" multiple times in the article but I cannot find the full citation. Can you provide me with:

• the author's full name
• the full title
• the year
• the publisher
• any additional information you might have, such as location, ISBN, or edition.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going over the Mary Conway Kohler article. Where can I find the version with your corrections? Henrybardklein (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrybardklein it has been published and can be found at Mary Conway Kohler. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cltr (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍 —Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section renamed from "Thank you also for reviewing Singa, Arunachal Pradesh"

Cltr (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cltr: you are most welcome, but I don't need a thank you for everything. Your continued work is thanks enough! Keep up the good work on Wikipedia. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]