User talk:Bobby Cohn: Difference between revisions

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.

hello Rafi MercadoFilm (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Rafi MercadoFilm, I see you’ve found the correct writing for your draft. Your next step is to source the material that you’ve already written. You’ll need to follow Help:Referencing for beginners. It’s possible that you’ve written your autobiography backwards, this is one of the many challenges with writing autobiographies. Best of luck, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobby, I’m unsure why you said our article is not backed by reliable sources? I only included sources that appeared on the google news tab with high DA authority written by reliable sources and staff writers. I omitted all press releases and anything that is considered promotional. Would you or someone you suggest be able to help us get this draft perfect? Also not sure how to write code to add in the years on the awards/ nomination table section that was added. How can we add in the years? Thank you for your help. DaniT at DNT Entertainment (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DaniT at DNT Entertainment: I have added maintenance tags where I could not find the supporting information in the citation, I believe this to be a result of AI hallucinations or writing the article backwards. That is good that you have not used press releases. Years can be added by simply writing it on the line that it is shown on the table, as you can see for the “Limbo” line in § Awards and nominations where it says “2025 Hollywood Independent Music Awards“. For more help with formatting tables, consider Help:Table. More importantly, this needs to be verified with a better source. Presently, the only year verified in the current citation is “Best Original Song at the 2025 HIMA Awards” (Flaunt.com) None of the other years that existed in previous version of the draft are supported by the citation and have been removed. Source them before you write about them.

I have already conducted extensive cleanup of the AI formatting and writing already, I do not have an interest in further helping you with your job. I’ve already done more than I do for most paid articles. As always, the Wikipedia:Teahouse is available for generic help as well, though I have yet to see someone there take up the mantle for paid editors there either.

Best of luck, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bobby Cohn! CSD G15 is only for blatantly unreviewed AI-generated content, meaning that wording style isn’t enough to tag an article. There are specific criteria that the community has accepted, namely the presence of communication intended for the user and hallucinated references. Regarding User:Altitudecontrol/sandbox, I’m not sure if (Select references from the sources above) counts as user-intended communication: it probably depends on whether you’re reading “Select” as a verb or an adjective, so it doesn’t fall under “any reasonable human review” in my opinion. Not a big deal, as there isn’t a pressing need to delete the draft: the user is already blocked, so it will naturally decompose. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chaotic Enby, that’s a fair assessment. As for the referencing style, it’s something I’d noted previously too, I’d pointed it out here. As a new CSD, I’ve been adapting my threshold of it as it gets sorted out by the community. Thanks for the heads up here. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, Bobby. It seems I’m not making the progress I had hoped with this submission. I do find it quite perplexing that one of the most notable figureheads in British hospitality is not considered ‘notable’ to warrant an article. Kind has been a pioneer of British hospitality of nearly years and far more notable than some several Wikipedia articles on our restaurateurs.

That being said, I will go back to the drawing board and start afresh, rewriting the entire article from scratch starting with sources and taking onboard your comments.

Perhaps I can then ask for you to cast your eyes on the new submission when a draft complete? Thomas Flynn (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.flynn, I can’t say I have any interest in reviewing more puffery for this subject, I feel like I did a valid search of the sources and stand by my rejection on notability grounds. I do not encourage you to start fresh, that’s often considered disruptive if you’re just trying to game the system. The wording of the rejection says “cannot be resubmitted”.

I do have an offer that I make to all the authors whose drafts I reject, it’s the same that’s often proffered at AfD discussions: Show me the best three sources that satisfy all: (1) independence, (2) reliable, and (3) significant coverage of the subject and if acceptable, I will endorse a resubmission over my prior rejection. Otherwise, I’ll choose to leave my rejection in the AfC history as is. You can read more about this offer at WP:THREE.

Otherwise, I have no interest in further reviewing more of similar prose on the matter. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobby! So sorry I submitted a article without sourcing. It is my first wikipedia article and I am doing it for a class Field Experience so was unsure. Besides the links given to me by Wikipedia do you have any advice/way to assist me getting this public soon as possible. Thank you! Cameronhall33 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cameronhall33, review Help:Referencing for beginners to find instructions on how to use citations to source the material you used when writing about your subject. If you didn’t use sources when you originally wrote the draft, it’s possible you tried writing the articles backwards and that will make your next steps much more difficult.

As for the timeline, there is no deadline or rush, so there’s no need to make this “public as soon as possible”. As for your class project, if this was assigned to you, have your assignor/instructor reach out to the Wikipedia:Education program for further resources; the staff there ensure that your grade is never based on acceptance or publishing to the mainspace, rather you get credit for the writing you’ve done regardless of the review’s outcome. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay thank you. I am at the site with a lot of siteable resources there tomorrow so that should improve the quality of the draft. Thank you! Cameronhall33 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Yasoob Haider Abidi Syed Azadar Hussain Abidi (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Syed Azadar Hussain Abidi, care to try again in your own words, and demonstrate to me that you understand the reasons for my original declination. If you’d like, make reference to rubber duck debugging, if that’s helpful. How do you think your draft addresses them? Thanks. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]