User talk:Bobby Cohn

Bobby Cohn has recently suffered a significant loss and is grieving. Consequently, his ability to work on Wikipedia and his time available to do so may be affected – an unplanned short wikibreak is also possible. Your patience with delays in handling Wikipedia responsibilities and in responding to talk page messages or e-mails is appreciated, as is your compassion and understanding. Thank you.

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.

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 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.

Click here to leave me a new message.

new references Cecimonster vs Donka Delilah

I just added a new references from Mexico and venezuela as well as one From Peru. there are many more but i dont know how many more references wikipedia needs. thank you Bobby Srapostrock (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Srapostrock, well done on finding three reviews of the album.

Article published, I have tagged it as a stub; I would recommend expanding on the reviews written in a "Reception" section as well as checking to see if the album has charted anywhere. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs

The article Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs for comments about the article, and Talk:Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HistoryTheorist -- HistoryTheorist (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Plant micro-reserve

Hello Bobby Cohn, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Plant micro-reserve. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #13.

GMH Melbourne (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Parental rights movement

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Parental rights movement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FishLoveHam -- FishLoveHam (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentionally scrambled the biobox. Can you reinstitute or tell me how?

Unintentionally scrambeled the biobox. Can you tell me how to reinstitute it. Henrybardklein (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scrambled biobox unintentionally

I was correcting the book reference at the end of the box, and that seems to have created the problem. I didnt make the biobox and am not familiar with them. Sorry for the headache. Henrybardklein (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Henrybardklein, the infobox has been corrected. An infobox is a type of template, if you wanted more information on how they are used on Wikipedia in the future. While editing, if you aren't sure about the changes being made to an article, make sure to use the Show preview to avoid mistakes. All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with sourcing

(Swamini Brahmaprajnananda) Hello, I hoping you can help me figure out what other references can be added to this page to clear this "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification.' The person who created the page used two resources, talking the information directly from the living person. Since the person to whom the page is created is not particularly famous, I don't know what other references there could be other than her own words to describe her life. Is there a specific section that needs more references than another. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. 24.34.93.198 (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been on my radar. I concur, if there isn't much to be found to demonstrate notability other than the subject's own words, then we ought not to host promotional content here. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

SAKE CHALLENGES

Dear Bobby Cohn,

Thank you very much for reviewing my work. I will make efforts to improve it.

Regarding the reliable sources, could you clarify where I should include them? I have already added all the articles related to the event with links below the references section. There are 12 references from Milan, Bordeaux, and Singapore articles.

Best regards,

Waxilo

Waxilo (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Waxilo, you have a lot of different things going on and I think you may be confusing proper references with different ideas, and there are some problems with your draft I'm going to try and address:

All of your inline external links are inappropriate. If an organization or subject on Wikipedia has an article about them on-wiki, then it is appropriate to link to them in the body of the article. But otherwise, just a select few relevant links may be included in an "External links" section. (I will address this later, but this raises some promotional concerns which make it more difficult to get approved.)
These external links are not references in the body of the article as they are just simply links to organizations' homepages. A reference would be an article that talks about the subject. Consider:
- The Power Broker is a biographical novel about Robert Moses and may be used to talk about things in Moses' life. Y Acceptable source.
- spotify.com is the homepage of Spotify but doesn't actually tell me anything about their history, and would not be a good citation for the section on corporate history their article. N Unacceptable source.
You do list some references collectively at the end, but because you haven't included these inline (in the way that you have with the Wikipedia links, as they are formatted in superscript numerals) it makes it difficult to verify the content you've written. You'll first need to identify what article text it is you want to use those citations to reference, and be sure they properly cite that material inline. See Help:Referencing for beginners for a further explanation on this topic.

Writing a Wikipedia article is not as simple as it might seem; I having been doing this for some time and I think you may have written it backwards. It seems you may have written what you know about the subject, and then appended some references to it at the end. We have a guidance essay about this at WP:BACKWARD. My suggestion is to

Start by finding as many sources on the topic as possible.
Then, to write, summarize what a source has to say, or take relevant facts from a source to include in the article. For each source, when you're adding this material, make sure to cite things inline.
Don't worry about formatting. This can be done later, and Wikipedia and the AfC team has lots of people who will help out. By including a lot of links to external organizations, people get the sense that you may instead be here to promote something or someone, and even if it wasn't your intent, it will unfortunately make it more difficult to have a draft article published.

There is a lot more guidance about this at Help:Your first article. By writing it this way, it will help demonstrate that you've pulled information from WP:Reliable, WP:Independent and WP:Secondary sources, something the team at AfC knows to keep their eye out for when reviewing drafts, as it will demonstrate WP:Notability. Notability is a threshold and something that is required for a subject to have an article on Wikipedia.

Hope this helps, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Waxilo, I've done some cleanup by removing citations to Wikipedia pages that following their inline links, and placing references in the proper style behind the content. I've removed external links from the body and placed them in their own section at the end, and the articles that were included in their own section have been transformed into a "Further reading" section. It should now begin to look more like a typical Wikipedia article. Your next step should be to use those articles to write about the topic of a "sake competition" using those sources, and remove anything that isn't backed up by those sources or is not related to the subject of the article and may be considered promotional. Again, my recommendation is that your read Help:Your first article and WP:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. Make sure you're not just talking about the London Sake Challenge in particular, we already have that article and there is no use in repeating the specifics of that article in an article about the broader topic. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]