User talk:Bobby Cohn/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, I just got my article submission rejected by you (Draft:Lương Minh Thắng). As a first time writer, thanks for the feedbacks. Thang Luong is a notable figure in the tech field in Vietnam and is someone I know and value and I want to do this article justice.

I thought my languages and what I report was neutral and what I wrote was neutral enough for Wikipedia standard. I understand that the citation I provided are mostly in Vietnamese, hence a difficulty in verifying them. Is there any specific parts I need more work on?

Thank you in advance TheHolyPotato0 (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TheHolyPotato0: there are pieces of text inline that say "[citation needed]". Was this text copied from somewhere?

P.S.: A minor note, I didn't reject your draft article, I simply declined it. It is a minor distinction, but means you still have the option to work on it and resubmit it. You will find editors on the project who care for the distinction and proper terminology, though I understand your intended use here.

Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bobby Cohn, I actually marked it there so that I can work on the citation. I didn't copy that part. I'm still working on it and do plan to get it resubmitted. TheHolyPotato0 (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I own both the draft and the article. I'm not sure why the draft is still there. Can it be discarded and can I keep the main article. 85Hikmat (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @85Hikmat: a couple things to address here:

1. You do not own anything. See WP:OWN.
2. The draft article is the article; they are one and the same. The article was moved from the mainspace because of your COI issues.
3. Because of your COI issue, you will need to submit the draft for approval before publication to the main space. This can be done by following the instructions at the top of the draft article.

Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the reply I didn't mean own it literally my bad on that part.

I added {{Histmerge|Draft:Hikmat Zaid}} on top of /wiki/Hikmat_Zaid

I have another message here:

Can you walk me through it if you're free of course.

Thanks. 85Hikmat (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @85Hikmat, yup, happy to help. To delete the entirety of the article from main space, copy and paste {{db-g7}} and replace the entirety of the article that is currently in main space. Secondary, before we continue, because it will affect the advice that I give, can you answer: are you Hikmat Zaid? My advice moving forward will depend on the answer one way or the other. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Haha no. Hikmat Zaid is my grand father (we share same name, I'm 22) and I wanted to write a biography on him. 85Hikmat (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@85Hikmat okay, great—thanks for answering and, for what it's worth, I believe you. I would be happy to help you bring a biographical article on your grandfather to the mainspace.

To simplify some of the steps moving forward, I would suggest you make a WP:COI declaration on your user page. You do not need to include your specific connection, and I would advise against it (you can read more at WP:REALNAME as it has relevant information). It can be as simple as In accordance with the community guidelines on [[WP:COI|COI]] editing, I declare I have a conflict of interest with [[Hikmat Zaid]]. or you can use a userbox template and simply have {{UserboxCOI|1=Hikmat Zaid}}. Either would work, or you can do something similar in your own words.

Secondly, I would suggest we work on the draft article presently located at Draft:Hikmat Zaid and go through the AfC process. This will have the benefit of preventing the article being labeled with the {{autobiography}} label at the top. And once the article is ready, provided it is appropriate, as an AfC reviewer, I can publish the article to the mainspace with the proper declarations in templates on the article's talk page, so that everything is above board. To do this, I would still strongly recommend placing {{db-g7}} at the top of the mainspace article Hikmat Zaid while the draft article is prepared in the draftspace.

To answer some of your questions, yes, your account has the technical ability to move pages, but we as a community also have a lot of guidelines and policies we like to abide by. You could have created any number of pages unrelated to yourself, but given the subject matter and your inexperience with some of the more technically nuanced aspects of the page, it is best to make sure to get approval from a third party, at least just a simple double check.

I will begin to do some cleanup work on the draft article when I next get some time.

Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey

I added db-g7 on the mainspace article Hikmat Zaid and added UserboxCOI|1=Hikmat Zaid on my on my user page

Do you know how long it takes for the mainspace article to get deleted and how long for the draft article to be approved into and moved into the article space.

thank you so much for your reply and your time. 85Hikmat (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @85Hikmat, for the mainspace article, it was deleted by the time I saw this message. For the draft article and how quickly it will be accepted, that will depend on how quick we can address issues and have it ready for mainspace publication. I've already begun to do some of the cleanup. There are a couple issues I caught going over the draft. It's not typical to fracture conversations like this, but I am actually going to continue this conversation on the talk page of the article as this is where it is the most relevant, and we can address the issues there. See Draft talk:Hikmat Zaid#AfC review. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bobby, I had several sources under References. Specifically, which source is not reliable? Thanks, jazznracer

Jazznracer (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jazznracer, I presume you're asking about the notice I left on your talk page, which didn't say that your sources were not reliable, but that it lacked reliable sources. With that in mind, I'm going to work from your most recent addition as it is in the article's page history:

• Paragraph one was the existing paragraph.
• Paragraph two contains promotional language (see WP:NOTPROMO) that is entirely unsourced.
• Paragraph three contains three inline external links unproperly formatted as citations. While the first would act as a citation to the reference material, it is solely promotional. Link two and three are WP:Primary and not WP:Independent and one of them is just a plain url to the organization's homepage.
• Paragraphs four through eight are simply the organizations contact information, both a failure of WP:What Wikipedia is not but also, for the purposes of your question, unsourced.
• Paragraphs nine and ten might be the only properly cited information, though the reason for their inclusion is dubious and lacks sufficient context.
• Paragraph eleven makes claims about persons and is unsourced, but does have a plaintext three in square brackets.
• Paragraph twelve uses plaintext inline to a url and then a external link.
• Paragraph 13 has two external links.
• Paragraph 14 does use a citation twice, that's good.
• Paragraph 15 has two proper citations, but the first only uses an organizations homepage again. The same paragraph has some text again in square brackets that may suggest to the reader that there is some sourcing occurring there but I couldn't figure it out.
• Paragraph 16 has some citations but makes claims that would need proper verification.
• Paragraph 17 is unsourced.
• Paragraph 18 through 37 may be sourced by the Smithsonian external link provided at the lead of that group, but would fail both WP:Original research and also WP:NOT again, as it is just a collection of names associated with the organization.
• From here, the article goes on to list things that are mostly difficult to make sense of and that would need to be sourced properly or be placed inline with {{cite document}}. Then there's some sort of message to its members (WP:NOT), presidential information that doesn't do the reader any good at identifying its purpose.
• Then the article ends with a paragraph about Eisenhower that simply confirms something happened without context to the subject of the article. Another statement about another correspondence, same issue.
• Then finally one last paragraph that has a citation that is actually written in WP:Summary style that does make sense.

Your addition also included a bunch of inappropriate markup and html tags, in addition to failing our policies and guideleines on WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:OR as mentioned above.

Further, I've left a WP:PAID warning on your talk page. Please read our policy on paid editing, and review our WP:COI guideline as well. Then before you edit further, can you answer on your talk page whether you are being paid for your edits.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bobby, I am not being paid or given gifts or favors. I am a volunteer at AAPL on the Board as Technology Director - https://aaplinc.org/board. Do you need a letter from our President, Aki Kano, stating I am only a volunteer?

Jazznracer (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jazznracer: No, that's fine, we operate on the assumption of good faith on the project. Am I correct in understanding though that you are editing in your capacity as the unpaid Technology Director? Bobby Cohn (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I am an unpaid Technology Director for AAPL. Jazznracer (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Bobby Cohn,

I was looking at a draft and thought, "Who is this Bobby Cohn?" and noticed a different name in the edit summary and realized you changed your username last month! It'll take a while to get used to this new identity but I'm sure it'll happen. Good luck with the new (or old?) name! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Liz, thanks for your note here, I appreciate your well wishes! Kindly (as always) Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear sir, The article is written from a neutral standpoint with 100% factual accuracy. Please tell me what else can I do because I need to publish this article as part of an important task. I have checked and I meet all the criterias for publishing it. Please look into it TheCloudGuy44 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheCloudGuy44: I did look into it when I declined the article. How would anyone be able to verify that any of it is true? You've written an article that is 1100 words long and used one citation, and that citation is to an article that is not longer than 70 words. To be able to properly write an article, first find sources that are reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject and then write about what they have to say about the subject, and cite to those citations. Because of your COI, you aren't able to view that there is a large problem with your draft; you've instead written what you know and expect Wikipedia to host your promotional material, contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Once the article is well-sourced and neutral, then it would be acceptable for mainspace publication. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bobby. This decline doesn't make any sense to me, and if I were the new user that submitted it I wouldn't have any idea what to do with it. Notability is a quality of the article subject, so not the article itself, so a statement like draft submission does not presently meet WP:NPROF is at best ambiguous, at worst misleading. In any case, a quick search on Google Scholar turned up over 5500 citations to Piper's work, so this is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. Please exercise caution when reviewing academic bio drafts in future – if you don't know the academic criteria, or aren't willing to check them, it's best to leave them for someone who will. – Joe (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Section renamed from "Attention"

Please Bobby kindly show me the errors in my article so I can correct it. Elsy wylex (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Elsy wylex, presently your article does not have any citations. Start by finding where other people have written and published information on the subject. You can then use that as sourcing to write a draft article. Be careful not to work backwards, seeing as you've already written the draft—you may find it hard to source information you have just written about. See Help:Your first article. To incorporate the information you find, see WP:REFB to understand how to incorporate those citations into WP:Inline citations. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, MOS:ORDER says {{Improve categories}} and stub templates go after the categories. I only just learned about MOS:ORDER so I may be misunderstanding. Un assiolo (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Un assiolo: Thanks for catching and letting me know here. I normally use twinkle to manage that, so I definitely wasn't familiar with the manual order. I think I've self corrected, though feel free to change it if I've messed it up again. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the diff, it looks like you forgot to restore the whitespace. As I said, I'm no expert myself, so I have no idea if the whitespace is required, but I've restored it just in case. The original version with whitespace came from a script which I assume is MOS-compliant, and it does actually show up as a gap at the bottom when the page renders, so I guess it's there for a reason. You also accidentally removed the short description, which I have restored. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Un assiolo you're totally right, I've found the explanation at WP:STUBSPACING. I also do not remember removing the short description, so quite the blunder on my part on this article as a whole. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bobby,

I would like to know how I can rewrite and improve my previous submission. I understand it´s percieved that I have not become an active member within Wikipedia, however, I would disagree. I made sizeable edits within Mexican rural wikipedia pages. I am a fluent english speaker who knows this rural region I believe I have added value to the edits I have made.

I understand the idea of self promotion, however, this is a non-profit organization and the wording may have been innapropriate. I have since deleted the section, and I would appreciate feedback on how I could improve. ProjectAmigo (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just an fyi that this draft you declined is definitely notable - the book won the National Book Award for Poetry. You're right that reviews are one way to meet WP:NBOOK, but "major award" is #2. Cheers! -- asilvering (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, you're totally right, thanks for catching that. Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Although there was a clear majority in favour of that proposal, the last few comments consisted of an open dialogue about a consistency issue that remains unresolved. The outcome is highly inconsistent with the pattern of other similar titles, and the last comments indicated that this inconsistency was undesirable. I suggest that a relisting rather than immediate closure was warranted. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @BarrelProof, I want to preface my statements here by saying something has come up and I am going to have spotty access to a computer, at least through the weekend. In the event that we do reopen and relist, while technically possible from an iPhone’s safari browser, not my preferred way to manage a complex revert. I’m also not opposed to relisting RMs, that’s not my hesitancy here.

Having said that, I don’t know if I agree either that the conversation was ongoing or it would be sufficient in moving the associated pages—unless I’m misunderstanding and that isn’t the goal. While I agree that there could be more discussion to be had, would it not be best to discuss those on their associated talk pages—either independently or bundled as discussed in the RM. My view as the closer seems like there wasn’t equal support across the board for agreeance in all the listed examples. I could expand more on the closing statement acknowledging as such if you think that would be a better starting point moving forward.

Again, I’m not against relisting, I just don’t know if I’m totally convinced at this point. What are you hoping to garner from a relist, that wouldn’t also require taking those additional steps in the future?

Kindly-and remotely 📱-Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. Considering that your reading of the situation is a bit different from mine and your technical difficulties, don't worry about it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Section renamed from "Drafts re"

Dear @Bobby Cohn

Over the past few days, I've worked diligently to revise the article from scratch, incorporating the feedback you provided last time. I've now republished the article as Draft

Draft:Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati - Wikipedia

Would you kindly review it and offer any feedback before considering deletion? I'm hopeful that the improvements will meet the necessary standards this time.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Om. Baldeep1102 (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)