User talk:Bobby Cohn

Click here to leave me a new message.

Braveland Conference

I wanted to get some more information from you on what type of sources you're looking for. The information presented in my article came mostly from newspaper clippings and high school yearbooks (most of which state the year they joined the conference or show standings to that effect). I compare what I wrote to the Parkland Conference page, and there are only two citations listed. It also has a comparative lack of narrative to what I presented, could that be the problem? Please advise. Moserjames79 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Moserjames79, you're actually in a really good spot if everything is sourced from newspapers and yearbooks as you say (this would directly address my WP:OR concerns if you aren't publishing original research yourself but merely summarising the things you've found from researching old sources). To remedy the issue, in the article following the narrative that you've written (that I'm assuming to be a summary of the sources) or statements of fact, simply cite those newspaper articles or books as you have with the online sources.

We have details about this in WP:OFFLINE, but please be as specific as possible when citing things, including name of publication/journal/newspaper, authors, date, etc. The yearbook one is interesting, but the same advice applies, give title, chapter/page, etc, as much as possible. Let me know if you need more guidance on this, my recomendation to new editors is to always follow the WP:INTREF3 guideline as it follows an easy popup style box that you can fill, and it will format it properly, but this will require that you not use the VisualEditor, something that can be changed in your preferences.

Regarding the other article, it is best not to rely on previously published material to be the standard of the work on the project, in essence: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you do want to follow along or use a guide, other editors have written 2009 Big Ten Conference football season, which is listed as a Good article, or 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, which is listed as a Featured article. But a Good article or a Featured article can be quite the challenge and is not what is asked of you when submitting a draft for review. However, the example article you've described above is tagged for WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability, the same issues I'm trying to address with your draft. If subjects can't be proven notable, the remedy is deletion and if the material isn't cited, it's possible other editors may challenge and remove it, see WP:PROVEIT.

Thanks for coming to ask, I'm always happy to help. My goal probably aligns with your goal, I want to see your draft published; I also want to make sure it's done right. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask! Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Moserjames79, just to give you an update on the status of your draft review, I've asked for some advice on the reliable sources noticeboard, see the section § The use of yearbooks as a source for an external but related organization as I mentioned that I am unfamiliar with this specific issue. Hopefully this will provide us with an answer and/or more specific guidance moving forward. There's nothing more for you to do in this moment, I thought I would simply keep you apprised of the latest as it relates to the draft. All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this, hopefully we get some clarification out of this so I can better prepare the other conference histories I have in the queue. Moserjames79 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft for Internationalist Communist Tendency and CC BY 3.0

Hi Bobby, I saw that the draft for this page has been rejected again and the reason given was that there has been a copyright violation. I'm not sure which content you were referring to in particular, as I am no longer able to view the previous edits, but in all fairness I probably wouldn't know even with access to that as my contributions to that draft are minor in comparison to the work of other users. I contributed more to the CWO article, which seems to have more English-language sources written about it.

However, I think you may be mistaken about there being any copyright violation at all. It appears that the content on the page you linked to (https://www.leftcom.org/en/node/36775) is licensed with CC BY 3.0. In fact, this is stated explicitly on the same page: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License", with a link to the license on the Creative Commons website. I'm not sure if it has always been like that or if they've changed it since the draft has been rejected, but given it's a fairly old license then I would assume the former.

I'm not that familiar with all these different licences or copyright in general (I always try to use my own works or turn to Wikimedia Commons to avoid making errors), but this looks to me like there has been no copyright violation whatsoever? Like I said, I cannot recall or check what the draft looked like, but if the content on the leftcom website was in the public domain or licensed under CC BY 3.0 to begin with, then is that not acceptable on Wikipedia (even if some of the other users paraphrased or copied segments verbatim from there) as long as due credit is given? --Pitsarotta (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Pitsarotta: it appears you're right, at least from what I'm able to gather in regards to what is still visible. It's possible both myself and the hiding admin missed it (if it was there at the time and hasn't been added since, might be able to be confirmed with an archive, not sure if it's still down right now, and not even worth the check, it's besides the point currently). But without having access to the page history to be able to exactly verify, like you I would make the same assumption given the breadcrumbs you've gathered. It would likely be worth it to have the hiding administrator (@Nthep) take a look at and unhide the past revisions if they are solely from that site. If it were to be incorporated again, it would be best to leave a {{cc-notice}} at the page as well.

With that said, I faintly remember thinking the content was of dubious value when it was incorporated, and not likely very encyclopedic to be in a draft. In general, Wikipedia ought NOT host party platforms all the same. But good catch nonetheless, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a version of the page as late as June 6, prior to my revision, contains a form of the CC licence. Mea culpa I suppose. Thanks for catching that. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to re-include the material, then fine but it needs to be attributed. Copying material covered by a CC licence and not attributing it breaches the licence and makes the copying a copyvio. Nthep (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Bobby Cohn and Nthep, thank you both for looking into this and responding. I cannot remember what the page was like before that content was removed, plus I don't think I know enough about this organisation to contribute much to the article, but I will probably let some of the other users know on their talk page as they might be interested. Thanks again. --Pitsarotta (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Natural Health News

Hello, Bobby Cohn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Natural Health News".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Bobby Cohn,

I realize you didn't write this draft, another editor took a redirect you created from moving an article and built an article on top of it. But, according to Twinkle, you are the draft creator, hence this message. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Liz, no worries. I'm pretty active at AFC and AFC/R as well as closing RMs, so I get these from time to time. I understand that it's just the mediawiki software keeping track of who first published the page; the notifications don't bother me. Most times if it isn't relevant to me, I'll just the revert the message here to keep down on clutter.

Thanks for keeping a sharp eye out though! All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Desh Pal S. Verma Biography- Inappropriate inline WP:External links will need to be corrected or moved

 Courtesy link: Draft:Desh Pal S. Verma

Hi Bobby,

thank you for leaving the comments on how to edit and correct the Biography for Dr.Verma. I am however struggling to fix the edits or know which edits to properly fix. Is there a way you can highlight all what needs to be edited so I can make my corrections? I am trying to have his biography published for him before he passes. For the External links are the links broken or how do i properly inlay them to fit your wiki formatting requirements? This is my first wikipedia page creation for Dr. Verma and I am trying my best! Any help of advice would be greatly appreciated! Vermadesh (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Vermadesh, I've removed the inline links, there is more detail in the linked project page explaining why they are not appropriate. I have also tagged the material that would need to be verified before the article is published, lest it be challenged and removed. There is also extensive listing of the subject's publications, typically it is best to only list the top 4 or 5 by impact or citation metrics. There are other websites whose role it is to host these lists, Wikipedia is not one of them. I've also dome some copy editing removing the promotional wording in the draft, I imaging another reviewer will examine this as well. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs

On 7 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Manhood was Josh Hawley's second book to be published by Regnery, after he was dropped by Simon & Schuster for his support of attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hurricane Debby (2024)#Requested move 30 October 2024

Any particular reason it was closed as not moved? It seemed to be no consensus (4 in favor/4 against), and without a summary it’s hard to tell where the consensus against a move is coming from. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you're making the mistake of counting votes, but even if we were to do that, half of those that "voted" support caged or prefaced their support as weak or as conditional to the name retiring. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

But yes, to further answer your question, it looked to me like people were making PTOPIC arguments that weren't gaining a ton of traction, coupled with caveated CRYSTALBALL speculation and sourcing was generally sparse, especially when asked for. As with any consensus decision, should new facts arise (and I would encourage a new RM to present them, of course), now or in the future, it would not preclude a new RM. But in the current argument, I generally read consensus to be against the move in the current state. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Article Recommendation

Thanks for the recommendation to merge my article with another one. It has been really helpful and I am grateful you gave me the recommendation. I have currently merged the my article with the one you recommended. Infoadder95 (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Glad it worked out for you, Infoadder95. The project is better off for your contributions!

Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)