User talk:Bobby Cohn

This is Bobby Cohn's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page and ping me ({{Ping|Bobby Cohn}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page and notify you.

Request on 07:46:00, 3 November 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Aaoe

Aaoe (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Maher Jarmakani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can you point me to the actual part of the article that does not meet Wikipedia's standard for inline citations?

Agatha Emina 07:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Aaoe: as I mentioned in the comment of the review: there are outstanding {{citation needed}} tags, and all information about a biography of a living person must be cited, per the policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons—this includes birthdates, which I was not able to verify in any of your first three inline citations that surround that info. Best, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 12:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European Seniors' Union.

Hello Marcus, Thank you for reviewing my article. I have been active on the Dutch Wikipedia for years, but this is my first article in English, where apparently not quite the same rules apply. I agree that it may have been a bit too promotional for this organization and I also understand that you deleted part of it. As for the citations, I have tried to adapt them to the English rules. Hopefully they now comply and I hope that you can cancel your remarks. If not, I would like some further explanations about what is actually wrong with what I write. Thank you in advance! Luxil (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Luxil: I've removed the advert tag but applied the primary sources tag. The prose has been improved, provided that for each of the factual statements in the text, there is an accompanying inline citation to a source. Generally, with some exceptions, for large paragraphs that talk about multiple pieces of related but separate information, you need inline citations to each fact or statement of information and not just a citation at the of the paragraph. This is flexible if all the information comes from the same source, but inline citations help demonstrate WP:Verifiability for articles on the project.

I added the primary sources tag because the article needs citations to secondary sources about the subject of the article. This will assist in demonstrating the subject of the article meets notability for organizations. As the way the article stands, it would be an okay article as the summary of the group and its history of advocacy, but the content of the article must be previously covered by secondary sources and not just a collection of information that can be found on the company's website. A simple google search or google news search is a great place to start, and non-English sources are okay to use. If you need any more help, I'm happy to answer more questions. Best, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 14:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcus,

Thank you for your subsequent comments on my article. In the meantime, at your request, I have added a number of non-primary links, which gives the article a more widely supported information background. I hope that I have met the additional conditions that were set.

I remain open to further suggestions. Best regards! Luxil (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcus, It has now been a week since I made the final edits to my article, in line with your previous comments. Since then I have not received any response from you. Can I assume that silence here means agreement? In that case can you remove the issue warnings please? Luxil (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think the issues have been addressed. See the actual text of the tag "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources." As I mentioned earlier, this will help establish notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ossett RUFC - Rejection

Hi,

Not sure what more we can physically submit to get this over the line? We have links directing to our league structure on the main England RFU website (RFU being the governing body for all rugby in England). Have direct news articles about our recent promotion and we have our established website?

Please do help me in understanding what more is required?

Thanks WikiCreator2023 (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WikiCreator2023: who is "we"? Just want to clarify that there is only one individual running the account and not a group, as required by Wikipedia policy and described at WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"We" as in the club (on behalf of) only myself has access to this account. I have re-written the article now from the club website with some adaptations - hopefully this suits more?

Thanks WikiCreator2023 (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted previous content that was removed as it was copyrighted content that closely matches content from an exterior source. The article cannot exist on Wikipedia with that content. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After many hours of learning Wiki it is a shame this has been marked for deletion. The article that you're referring to as copyright is actually text that is written on our main club website (www.ossettrugby.co.uk) and under the information and history section. The article has copied our original content so fail to see how this can the be copyright against the club itself?

As discussed I have edited the text but I struggle to see how I am to mention years leagues, and winning scores without it being closed as copyright? I have tired to re-write word for word and would honestly appreciate help to make sure hours of my effort does not get deleted. WikiCreator2023 (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a copyvio issue because you are adding it from content hosted by the club (Wikipedia cannot establish that you are a representative of the club and you should not advertise yourself as such without first properly verifying per policy) to content hosted by and published by Wikipedia. You cannot treat a Wikipedia page about a subject as property of the subject. Because that ownership is not transferable, any content copied—as you mention at The article has copied our original content—is a copyright violation that cannot exist on Wikipedia. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am just struggling to see how I upload the club's history then. If I re-write the paragraphs but the dates and scores stay the same (as these are facts) would this be suffice?

As said it's difficult to write the club history on the Wiki page without it hitting the same markers as the articles you have marked for copyright. So really unsure what to do. If re-writing is enough I shall look to do so, as said though the scores would stay the same, as would dates and the cup/trophy titles? WikiCreator2023 (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the dates and facts that are the issue, it is the reuse of content following the same style and tone as the original source. If the original source can be published with open licenses, then you are free to reuse the text with some restrictions, the policy for that is here. The policy at Wikipedia:Copyrights is the source for what is and isn't permitted on Wikipedia; further, you may also find this explanatory essay may help explain some of the issues you are finding here: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something that we haven't addressed is that the source for this material—as outlined in Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing at Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy and referred to you above as being on the club website—is that the club's website is not a reliable and secondary source for establishing notability or for unbiased neutral point of view disputes of facts, and all statements made in the article will need inline citations to secondary sources. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi MicrobiologyMarcus. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Draft:David Tolchinsky

Hello!

I appreciate your review of my article, and thanks for your hard work! Because I couldn't find incredibly reliable sources in terms of Tolchinsky's birthdate, I went ahead and just removed it. In general, I tried to trim up some of the information without secondary sources in that section so that what's said is directly relevant to what the sources confirm.

I just hoped to run it by you and see if you had any additional comments and/or suggestions, as well as whether my edits resolved the issues. Thanks again for your feedback! :) Mrcardon (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Mrcardon: that's fine, it's for the best. The point of requiring citations for BLP is if we can't cite it, it doesn't belong.

Something minor: the MOS asks that film names be given in italics. But that's simple copy editing, I think as it exists now, the article should be acceptable for mainspace. Feel free to resubmit it now, there's an active backlog drive going on so it will probably be reviewed quickly.

Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 20:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Blues (film)

Actually it was created by @Mooonswimmer. FloridayArmy expanded it a bit, submitted it then it was declined. Mooon improved it then moved it mainspace so no, this was not a "FloridaArmy special". S0091 (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @S0091: Yeah, you're right. My apologies if that came across as mean, it's not what I intented. I'd be happy to remove that comment from the closure if its okay with you. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 20:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It did come across to me as mean spirited but I will leave it up you about the striking given its your edit history. I mean, there is a legitimate reason FA is under restrictions but in this instance it had nothing to do with that. Also, there is no reason for me to think you are generally a mean spirited editor/person. S0091 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Special Barnstar
		thanks for writing parental rights movement! 65.49.155.116 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]