User talk:Bobby Cohn: Difference between revisions

Line 134: Line 134:

== Speedy deletion declined: [[:Draft:Claroty]] ==

Hello Bobby Cohn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of [[:Draft:Claroty]], a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Draftified in lieu of deletion. Give them a chance to try again. Thank you. [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 23:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

== Nuero-Electric Therapy ==

Hello Bobby Cohn,

Thank you for taking the time to review my recent submission, Draft:Neuro-electric therapy. I appreciate the clear and actionable feedback you provided regarding the lack of citations and the promotional tone.

Based on your comments, I have substantially rewritten the entire draft. I went through and added inline citations for every claim to ensure full verifiability and stripped out any language that could be perceived as promotional to maintain a strictly neutral, encyclopedic point of view. I also added several independent, secondary sources (from publications like Forbes and Rolling Stone) for historical context to better establish notability.

I have just resubmitted the revised draft for review. If you have a moment, I would be very grateful for your feedback on the changes.

Thank you again for your time and guidance. [[User:OpiateFreedom|OpiateFreedom]] ([[User talk:OpiateFreedom|talk]]) 22:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Looking for faster responses or more generic help? You may receive feedback at the Wikipedia:Teahouse in a more timely manner.

SCAM WARNING

If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Please report it to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Hi thank you for your note! I can add many references I’m just not clear how to that in accordance with your format. Where should I begin? Also, do you need images from me? TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheaterSquareMuse. Review the instructional page Help:Referencing for beginners to understand how to add references inline in your text. In regards to your photos, did you take them or did you get them from somewhere else? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They’re my own personal photos of the subject and the contents of the article. I own the IP I took them. TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheaterSquareMuse that’s perfect. To upload them, you will be releasing them to the commons so you should understand what that entails it will explain as it is uploaded. Follow the Wikipedia:File upload wizard and once the file has been uploaded it can be placed in the draft.

Because you are close to the subject, you will likely need to review our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest behavioral guideline that provides guidance and suggestions when editing on topics that you are close to. Let me know if you have any questions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now how to do the citations, thank you. Do I redraft a new version or edit this pending one? TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheaterSquareMuse, edit the existing one and when you think you’ve addressed everything, then click the blue “Resubmit” button to place it back in the queue to be reviewed. Make sure to note our WP:Biographies of living persons policy, our WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view policies as well. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this biography would be the perfect fit for “what women do” by the way. Once it’s cited properly. TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheaterSquareMuse, the October 2025 Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon looks like it is reviewing articles according to the good article criteria in order to designate them as “good articles” which are a great guide for article quality on the project. I would highly encourage you to aim for writing an article of that quality, but it isn’t a criteria of acceptance at AfC of course

Happy editing, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

photos

Hi! I added photos to my pending article but not sure it worked. Can you confirm? TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No changes to Draft:Jules Dhond. Remember to save your work to publish it using the blue “Publish” button. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

photos

can you send me the page where I upload photos again? Also, did you see the citations I added. Those changes went through right? TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheaterSquareMuse, no need to start a new thread for every message. It is still listed above at Wikipedia:File upload wizard. I can see on the commons: you’ve uploaded File:Jules Dhond in her home studio in Orinda, California.png. That is placed in the article by using [[File:Jules Dhond in her home studio in Orinda, California.png|thumb|Juliana Dhond in front of artwork]] which will produce the accompanying thumbnail. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I submitted a second image. Samurai Love by Padraic South. Is that one also uploaded properly? Can you see it? I sent the licensing agreement by email. TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheaterSquareMuse, if you sent the any documentation by email to the Commons:Volunteer Response Team you’ll need to wait to hear from them regarding next steps for that image that you want to upload. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saeuortklmh (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Saeuortklmh, do you have a question? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You found one. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent obvious PROMO/NOTHERE concerns aside which I frankly agree with, the original block was a soft block—no? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that means block evasion is allowed but I have been unwell 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brandsome/Archive is a similar thing. At least that’s what I was thinking of when I left my comment. More of a “no need to process the rename request and unblock” notice to whichever admin was going to see it next. Unless I misunderstand—which is also very likely, it’s early here and I’m coming off a short rest after some minor celebratory inebriation. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are proven to be correct. I suspected you were. Thank you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, you are one of todays’ lucky few. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobby,

Thanks for your review of the page I helped revise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SerpApi.

Would you mind clarifying why you believe the tone reads more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia? In my opinion, it maintains a neutral point of view, and matches the tone of similar Wikipedia articles about technical companies. Several neutral, credible third party sources are also cited:

“Meet the Google-Scraping Startup Used by ChatGPT, Cursor and Perplexity”. The Information. Retrieved 2025-10-08.
“ChatGPT’s real-time answers: what powers them”. Tom’s Guide. 2025. Archived from the original on 2025-09-15. Retrieved 30 September 2025.
Goodwin, Danny (26 August 2025). “ChatGPT’s answers came from Google Search after all: Report”. Search Engine Land. Retrieved 30 September 2025.
Can you please review these and let me know if you still believe these do not meet that criteria? And if so, can you please clarify the reasoning?

Thanks again, and looking forward to your response. Ryan-serpapi (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ryan-serpapi, I’m always happy to review WP:THREE. My assessment would be as follows:

As for why I don’t think it reads neutrally but instead like an advertisement is because of the source material used. If all that can be said about the company is it’s products, this results in sections like § Common uses which you wouldn’t see in an article of featured article quality on a corporation like Sega, BAE Systems, or Namco. Instread, we want to know what WP:SIRS have said about the subject, i.e.: the company. Hope that helps explain my declination reasoning.

Lastly, please make sure make your WP:PAID editing declaration on your userpage. I will leave a pro forma notice on your talk page with more information.

Best, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you so much for the extensive feedback, @Bobby Cohn!

I see that § Common uses is better to rephrase to something like Stripe, Inc. § Technology company, Twilio § Technology, or Semrush. We’ll do that.

Best, Ilyazub (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilyazub see that Twilio is tagged with {{promotional}} and none of those three have been reviewed as either WP:FA or WP:GA. I would advise against looking for examples to justify your writing as other stuff exists. Changing to section name will not address the promotional tone and failures of WP:NOT. As advised previously, write about what WP:SIRS have said about the subject, i.e.: the company. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn Got it, that makes sense now. Thank you. Ilyazub (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So please give why Tusharavind (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tusharavind: the subject is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bobby Cohn , I would like to know why did you declined my creation draft? Tell me what issue did you see and let me fix it. Maymudra (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Maymudra, I declined because the sources used in the draft article do not demonstrate that the subject is notable enough to warrant an article as do not demonstrate all (1) independence, (2) reliability or (3) significant coverage. There are parts of the draft article that are not supported by citations. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I am new user here so can you help me? Maymudra (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maymudra you can review those above project pages which will explain the issue in more detail. If you are looking for more ways to get involved, have a look at the Wikipedia:Task Center. All the best, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am lost, I don’t know what to do. My purpose is simple, I just want to see my favorite actress on wikipedia profile. It would be better if you help me write it. Maymudra (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maymudra, it is possible that the subject is not notable enough yet to warrant an article. If you are unable to find suitable sources, it likely means that it is too soon to consider writing an article. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn how it is possible too soon to consider writing an article? She is stop her actress life and when she getting famous there wasn’t social media. So it is really difficul to find all the things. But I tried to fill as much as I found out. And the References I placed are all from the biggest media news. So she deserve to have a wikipedia profile. Maymudra (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you’ve found additional sources and resubmitted. I’ll let another reviewer take a look at the newest version. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobby Cohn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Claroty, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Draftified in lieu of deletion. Give them a chance to try again. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobby Cohn,
Thank you for taking the time to review my recent submission, Draft:Neuro-electric therapy. I appreciate the clear and actionable feedback you provided regarding the lack of citations and the promotional tone.
Based on your comments, I have substantially rewritten the entire draft. I went through and added inline citations for every claim to ensure full verifiability and stripped out any language that could be perceived as promotional to maintain a strictly neutral, encyclopedic point of view. I also added several independent, secondary sources (from publications like Forbes and Rolling Stone) for historical context to better establish notability.
I have just resubmitted the revised draft for review. If you have a moment, I would be very grateful for your feedback on the changes.
Thank you again for your time and guidance. OpiateFreedom (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply