User talk:Bobby Cohn

Archives and other talk page banners.

Archives: Index 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 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 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. SCAM WARNING! If someone contacts you asking for money to get a draft published, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article—do not trust them! These offers are scams. Report them to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. See WP:SCAM for more information. This user talk page often deals with similar or reoccurring topics. Generic titles of messages may be refactored 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. This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.

 Courtesy link: Draft:Exness

Hi Bobby,

my name is Uros, nice to e-meet you. I've wrote article about Exness company that you have reviewed after I have submit it for second time. First rejection was on behalf of quality of references I have used. Following that comments I have done research and added additional references to article. I have reviewed similar live wikipedia pages as reference (eg. FxPro; https://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC_Markets; https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/AvaTrade). I wanted to ask you what to focus on when further editing and adding references to my article. Also I believe I have followed guidelines on neutrality tone (I did it by looking on guidelines and on other Wikipedia pages of companies). I appreciate your feedback and advise 🙏 Ufbelgrade (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ufbelgrade, before we continue: on your talk page, I left you a message about undeclared paid editing, see User talk:Ufbelgrade § December 2024. As it says in the warning, please review that and make any necessary declarations before continuing to edit. Once you are following the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, then I would be happy to provide assistance. Thank you, Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bobby Cohn, can I ask for your assistance on how to move forward with my article editing? I appreciate your feedback. Thank you. Ufbelgrade (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ufbelgrade, I would not focus on other articles when drafting a new article. There are many things that have not yet gotten around to being cleaned up, or may not be notable and have not yet be sufficiently reviewed and may yet still be nominated for deletion, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you still however feel it would be helpful to base your writing around an existing article, anything that has been reviewed and rated as a WP:Good article or WP:Featured article would be what to look at. Further, the bs: and the es: have their own policies and no bearing on the content on the English Wikipedia.

I left the COI and PAID notice because the sources tend to follow just promotional releases from the company or follow what the company has said about itself, which Wikipedia does not care about. Instead, we want to see what independent, secondary and reliable sources have said about the subject. If enough of them have discussed the subject in depth, then we consider the company notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word, see WP:NCORP. If the company is notable, then we must ensure that any article on the company must be written neutrally, in accordance with our WP:NPOV policy. Everything said on such an article needs to be verified using (again) reliable sources, see WP:V.

With those policies satisfied, then and only then can a draft article be accepted for mainspace publication.

You may find the page WP:42 helpful, as well as some of the information on Help:Your first article. Let me know if you have any specific questions. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited the page, and wrote that they're unsourced but they were sourced. Kharavela Deva (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kharavela Deva, as you can see, everything I removed in my edit was unsourced, I left the rest. I cited WP:PROVEIT, I would encourage you to add the content back in if it can be supported by inline citations. You may find Help:Referencing for beginners helpful. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to tell that you, please revert the edits. As you don't know anything about this subject. Yeah, I know Wikipedia is not a place for 'experts' or a scholar and It was cited. Kharavela Deva (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kharavela Deva: I can't really tell how to interpret this message, but I've removed copyright violations from the page that copied from https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/anuvadi and https://www.britannica.com/art/anuvadi and the page is presently marked for revision deletion. As it says in the note I left on your user page:

Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

You have to write in your own words and cannot copy wholecloth from external materials. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I accidentally moved a talk page to a regular article name, Im trying to move DAA (Irish company) to DAA (company), can you help with this Mind the gap 1 (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mind the gap 1: Yes, please, stop what you're doing. As fast as I can click on page histories to find the route you took, there are more mistakes to undo. Please wait. Page moving can make things very difficult to clean up. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Bobby Cohn,

Thanks for your RM close at Talk:Zenbook#Requested move 22 November 2024. I have seen you have moved from ZenBook to Zenbook, but it is not clearly mentioned in the closing statement about the move. Do you think you can edit to add a line saying something like, I have moved to ZenBook. Thanks for your time! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bunnypranav: Ah, of course. I spent so long on the wording of the closing decision that I forgot to make it clear from the get go what the closure was. Thanks for your note here. I've made the correction in the closing statement. I hope it's more clear now, but feel free to let me know if I've still got tunnel vision. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. Thanks for the quick fix and reply! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is starting to be troublesome. A minute after the AfD notification they draftified the article. Your prior interventions with them mean you may get through to them. Move the draft back to mainspace or close the AfD as moot, either is fine by me 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Timtrent, unfortunately this isn't the first time this ... *ahem* page has played it fast and loose with removing deletion templates, as you might be able to surmise from the edit summaries in the now revdel'd page history and with the editor's prior talk page warnings. I try to be cognizant of my own feelings; presently I think my own ability to AGF with this editor has worn thin, so I will try and temper my opinion and explain the next parts as factually as possible.

There's two things at play here. On one hand, at least as far as I can tell from your nomination statement at AfD, you were looking for dratification at AfD, so that's now the outcome. It could be procedurally closed, there really isn't much of a DRAFTOBJECT left.

On the other hand, I don't know if time in the draft space will be spent to improve the article. I can't help but feel like this might be a way to skirt the lens of AfD, and I tend to agree with the first option you've presented above and the one @Spiderone has asked about at the AfD—that this should just be seen at AfD and remain in the mainspace. I don't know what you have seen or the extent of your BEFORE, but I think it ought to just be dealt with and either (1) determined to be notable, in which case minimal effort might be needed to copyedit it down into a suitable long term stub, or (2) determined non-notable through actual community consensus.^[a] I think I will likely choose to not voice an opinion at the AFD nor will I revert the move myself, I think I'm too involved at this point. Let me know what you think about either of those paths, Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editor is trying to stretch good faith, but it may be a CIR issue. I've left a further comment at the AfD after Spiderone's reinstatement

I never thought of our needing a Cats and Coffee warning on Wikipedia before! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I thought about it and, with a cup of coffee consumed and a replenished ability to AGF, did listen to your inital appeal here and left a message, hopefully helping in explaining some of the current and past situations this article has been through. You'll have to let me know if something came off as too BITE-y or unhelpful, but I do hope that it could get to the point where the article is in a suitable space and condition. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. I have no real idea if they appreciate(d) it, though. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so in conducting a self-guided crash course on Indian classical music, it looks like a music style called the Raga is typically formed using notes that, when brought together in their musical style, are called (in order):

1. The vadi svara or vadi note, see Vadi (music). This is the root note.
2. The samavadi, a secondary note.
3. The anuvadi—of course being where we find ourselves here— another secondary note and often listed third in these types of lists.

As an aside, I think the correct AT of the article in question should probably be Anuvadi but one hill at a time.

The first two do have articles,^[b] it's possible that all three are truly notable and their lack of content is a result of systemic bias. There might also be an argument to make that the content from all three ought to be merged into Raga, either as not notable or a violation of NOT.

Is grouping all three at the AfD right now too much of a hounding? I can't say that I would've been doing this type of cleanup if not for the initial issues. I'd love your thoughts. I think there's an argument to be made that all three should be merged to Raga Svara, Mukhya Svaras or Svara Graha.

Let me know, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One hill at a time. After some tome has elapsed a requested merge can handle all three, wth editors who have an interest in the field taking over. Yes, that was a shirt answer to a long message. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with brevity, it is a skill that escapes me from time to time. I'll take it as meaning there aren't any fundamental issues with my approach or attempts at improvements to the article. As to your above message, if we were in this for the thanks, we definitely have the wrong hobby. Bobby Cohn (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect BlueSky has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 7 § BlueSky until a consensus is reached. Raladic (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobby! Can you help me with the problems in my draft. I have just started writing on wikipedia. I thought I have enough references for submission of my draft Inhumane Life (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Inhumane Life, you'll need to source everything using inline citations, this can be done by following the guides at Help:Referencing for beginners. Presently your article has a weird mixture where some are correctly placed, and then there is a large collection of links at the bottom of the draft. This would be your next step in correcting the article. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobby, Can you help me personally with it? Inhumane Life (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Inhumane Life, are you asking if I will (re)write or edit the draft? Beyond standard copy editing to assist with the minutia of Wikitext, no I won't. I did not write the first draft, so I don't know from which references you've pulled the information from to be able to place the citations inline. See the guidance on WP:BACKWARD, I definitely won't be rewriting someone else's draft backward. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobby Cohn, Thank you for reviewing my submission on Dr. Hussain Falamarz Tahir. I would like to understand more about why it was deemed contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Could you provide specific feedback on how I can improve it? Best regards, [Ridademello] Ridademello (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ridademello, after multiple rounds of feedback from reviewers, the draft article was still not being revised to meet our WP:NPOV policy. In addition, it is not referenced with reliable sources that are independent from the subject and who discuss the subject in-depth, in such a way to try and satisfy our WP:Notability (people) policy. These were all explained in the prior declination decisions and a reviewer asked you to review these and address these concerns before continuously resubmitting the article. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:AG Capital

Hi Bobby,

Thanks for being editor for my article. May I know what exactly is wrong with my references as generic refusal message doesn't give any actual idea on what's wrong. I've used second-source hi-quality links/ references for my article but for some reason they don't align with Wiki guidelines still. Eorling James (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eorling James, your sources aren't independent of the subject, in fact they don't discuss the subject at all. What you need to do is summarize what reliable, secondary sources say about the subject of the draft. These sources need to cover the subject in-depth, preferably three of them (see WP:THREE) to demonstrate the subject is notable, see WP:NCORP. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobby! I would like to ask what specific part of my article "Momm Ched" I need to fix? I appreciate if you pin point on what part I need to edit. Thank you! MommyChed (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MommyChed, I assume based on your username that you have a conflict of interest with the subject of the draft. Please see the notice I left on your user talk page at § Managing a conflict of interest. It has relevant information about disclosing a conflict of interest as well as guidance on writing about topics with which you are closely connect to and the inherent difficulties in that process.

As for the draft, you need to make sure that everything is sourced to reliable sources and there is sufficient coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject to demonstrate notability, see WP:NBIO. You then also must ensure that the draft complies with our content policies and is not promotional and is strictly neutral in tone, see WP:NPOV.

In addition, while not directly assessed during review at AfC, the style of the article likely plays a large role in how it is perceived and presently it is very strangely formatted and bolded. Often times, in conjunction with the non-neutral tone, this will cause reviewers to further perceive it as non-neutral and decline it for the reasons I have just given. I would therefore also advise, having some experience with this, that you review the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and ensure that it also doesn't look promotional either.

Best of luck, Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help me to get acceptance for above article. 103.252.145.222 (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]