User talk:Bobby Cohn/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

First time working on an article, thanks for rejecting it.

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)

COI issue

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:

Extended content

It is requested that the page history of Draft:Hikmat Zaid be merged into the history of this page. This action must be performed by an administrator. Consider placing Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Hikmat Zaid a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Hikmat Zaid. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. 85Hikmat (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC) on the talk page of the editor who performed the cut-and-paste move.

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)

reliable source - American Artists Professional League wiki

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)

Username change

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)

Allow article publishing

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)

Draft:Philip Piper

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)

Draft:Boldwin Ariscot

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)

MOS:ORDER

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)

User:ProjectAmigo/sandbox

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)

Draft:From Unincorporated Territory åmot

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)

's Up RM closure

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)

Draft:Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati

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

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)

Estoile Naiant move request

What was rationale for this move request failing? The majority of oppose arguments were predicated on a poorly formulated argument which did not actually argue against the rationale to support the move. Move requests are not supposed to be simple vote tallies, but are meant to consider the strength of arguments. 122141510 (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @122141510, you are correct in that closures are not vote tallies, and I would appreciate if you didn't insinuate that were the case here. My closing procedure, both in this case and in general, involve both (1) trying to evaluate the general consensus in the discussion and (2) giving due weight to both sides of the discussion and not discarding the less popular arguments out of hand. As it applies to this closure, I found (1) that there was general consensus against the move and (2) that in a point-counterpoint style balancing test, I did find the arguments opposing the move sufficiently and convincingly addressed the move rational in closing the discussion. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you be able to elaborate on that? Three of the oppose votes cite a 'per user', who talks past a bulk of evidence and support and actual citing of policy as rationale for the request, to insinuate some unfounded conjecture about 'marketing purposes'. 122141510 (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@122141510: I don’t know if I have more to expand on. So unless you have a specific question, I don’t have more to say. You’re welcome to take it to WP:Move review if you aren’t happy here. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Cleaning up after the move "Deadlock"

Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Cleaning up after the move, you should not close any move if you are unwilling to do the necessary clean up tasks, including fixing any mistargeted wikilinks resulting from the move (only applies when the move involves a change to primary topic). Talk:Deadlock (computer science)#Requested move 13 August 2024. wbm1058 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Wbm1058: appreciate the note here. I thought I caught everything but reviewing now, I realized I missed the primary dab on the new primary topic, though someone else has gotten to that since. Normally I think I do catch that, it did unfortunately slip past me this time. Is that what you're referring to here, or is there something else I'm missing? Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Usually a bot puts this template on a page, but I saw that you did that. Generally the WP:WikiProject Disambiguation editors don't like to see admins intentionally dumping hundreds of pages onto Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links without at least helping with that a little bit. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Okay, I'll admit I was not aware of this on the backend. I had seen others do it so I assumed it was okay as a part of the process. I will ensure to pay closer attention to this going forward. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Nicolai Lilin

Hi there, thank you for your speedy assessment of the draft page I wrote. I was just wondering, if time and patience allow you, if you were willing to give the current revision a look. The citations should be in order. If you do, please let me know if there are any other issues. Kind regards. Mariomassone (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mariomassone: Looks good, well done on the article! Bobby Cohn (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Adam J. Minnick article.

Hi, Bobby. I am attempting to submit a biography article for cinematographer, Adam J. Minnick. However, even with numerous references and clear notoriety, I am getting declined for publishing because it's reading "more like an advertisement" than an article. I have been making sure to use external references from multiple national publications that mention Minnick's work, but I keep getting the same sort of declined message. Is there some wording that you can see that is gating my publishing of this article? Thanks. Alichtenstein1! (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Alichtenstein1!, you say "keep getting" declined but at the time of your message, the article had only been declined once. Is there another copy or version of the article? I can assist in so far as the article presently at Draft:Adam J. Minnick. The advice from the most recent reviewer points to WP:RS. You will note that things like IMDb and Letterboxd are not considered reliable. See WP:IMBd. Looking at the section #Early life and education, the first citations are to IMBd and then a generic Google search. Then the rest of the paragraph goes on uncited. This is a perfect example of something that needs to be cited. The policy for this is at WP:BLP and WP:IC.

In so far as the article reads promotional, consider the line "It was during these formative years that Minnick discovered the cinematography of..." This is neither neutral (WP:NPOV) or encyclopedic, and is also unsourced. Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be written in summary style and supposed to be boring in tone (and well-sourced), and if people find something interesting, it is the content that is supposed to speak for itself.

Is it possible you've just written what you know about subject without first looking for what reliable sources have said about the subject? Take a look at Help:Your first article and make sure you aren't writing your article WP:BACKWARDS. You will find it easier to write an article if all you set out to do is describe what sources have said about the article. When you do that, make sure the sources are WP:Reliable, WP:Independent, and WP:Secondary. Read and understand those policy pages, they will have more information than I can write in a reply. That is the proper (and easiest) way to write a Wikipedia article.

Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Jack Rechcigl

Good afternoon, Bobby Cohn,

Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate your guidance and want to make sure the article meets Wikipedia's standards. I put a lot of working hours into this submission, so I would really like to improve it. Since this is my first time writing an article, I could use some help. Regarding the picture, I already have another one I can use. Regarding the submission not being adequately supported by reliable sources, could you please provide examples of sources from my draft article that would be considered reliable, and which ones might not be? Additionally, could you offer some advice on how to avoid the article reading like an advertisement? While I understand the concern, my intention was not to promote the subject but to present information objectively. I want to ensure the content is neutral, well-sourced, and aligns with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability policies. Your assistance would be invaluable as I work on these revisions. Thank you. AgroLover (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AgroLover, I began to conduct copy-editing of the draft article removing the external links as advised in the comment I left. But presently there are whole paragraphs and sections that go uncited. These will need citations. Did you read the comment I left on the article in addition to the declination reason? Citation 51 is to a Gmail. That would be an example of something not being supported by a reliable source. Presently § University governance and service, § Asia, § Austrailia, § South America are entirely unsourced.

Then there is the problem of WP:Original research and WP:Neutral POV. Presently the article is written:

He has garnered international recognition for his innovative approaches to agriculture and urban environments, earning a reputation as a visionary leader. Rechcigl's tenure as a science administrator is distinguished by his exceptional leadership and commitment to advancing scientific endeavors in agriculture and environmental studies.

But the citations are entirely to things authored by the subject. You may use research items to support facts about the subject, but not promote the subject. Consider the difference between:

1. John Doe has conducted research in agronomy and ecology, and has published a patent for Unique Methodology 1.
2. John Doe is a world renowned genius in agronomy and ecology, and has transformed the way ecology research is conducted the world over.

References

You can't say the promotional part unless someone else has said that about the subject (see WP:Reliable, WP:Independent and WP:Secondary sources policy).

It looks like you've written the article WP:BACKWARDS. Instead, do the research first and collect what other sources have written about the subject, then summarize that research in WP:Summary style. See the guidance at Help:Your first article.

That would be my advice as a starting point to salvage the article. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bobby,

Thank you for the copy-editing work you've started on the draft article. I appreciate the feedback and the guidance you've provided.

I did review your comment on the article and the declination reason. I understand the importance of adding proper citations, and I'll work on finding reliable sources to support the content in these sections.

Regarding Citation 51, I see that it is not appropriate I'll remove it and find a replacement.

I'll keep you updated as I make these changes. AgroLover (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Miguel and the Living Dead

The article was written by me much earlier in the English version (in 2023), based on the Polish version updated by me, than this page (which was created only in June 2024). I know the page, but I did not quote it, because it is prepared for the release of the new album. The band asked me not to post it on Wikipedia for now. Materials about MATLD are verified and 100% certain. I have full rights to the photos, I sent permissions to the Polish version of Wikipedia. The official website of the band will be cited only after the official release of the next album this year. It is still under development. Currently, talks are underway with the record companies, the material is already recorded and ready for release. Please post the article, because this is a strange action, to say the least. MKutera74 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[odpowiedz] I own the copyright to this text 100%. Please restore it and don't make problems!!!! MKutera74 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[odpowiedz] Where is my draft????? I worked on it for several months, taking into account suggestions and comments from previous editors!!! this is a complete lack of respect and understanding for the authors of the article! MKutera74 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[odpowiedz] MKutera74 (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@MKutera74: if your timeline of events is accurate, then I think there are some misunderstandings of the copyright issues involved. If it was originally written on here, while you do own the copyright to it, you released it under the Creative Commons BY-SA License 4.0. Further, if that is the case, then the website listed in your speedy deletion G12 notification (www.matld.org/main.html) is falsely claiming copyright to the work. If it was originally written on Wikipedia, which should be easily proven by the page histories, then the band's website will need to adjust their copyright notice to one that is compatible with Wikipedia, or provide proper attribution. But it was the band's website's copyright notice that prompted this issue. You will need to discuss this issue with a Wikipedia administrator who will be able to examine the timeline proposed here and cross-reference it with the deleted page's edit history. Unfortunately, I cannot help you any further in that regard. Your band's website administrator may be able to assist by using the form and email at WP:Contact us; it sounds like you may have prior experience with this process.

In regards to your work with the band, because of your relationship, please review our WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid-contribution disclosure and please make any relevant declarations on your userpage. I've left a generic warning template on your user talk page as a record of this notice.

Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that the Wikipedia draft was written prior to the creation of the website. As such the band website is mirroring the text and it is not a copyright infringement. That said, you note that "I own the copyright to this text 100%". Are you aware that by publishing this work to Wikipedia you are releasing it under license as BC explains above? There will be no copyright. You also need to explain in far more detail what you mean by sentences such as "The band asked me not to post it on Wikipedia for now." I see on your talk page that you claim "no financial or legal benefits" but you clearly have a close involvement with the band. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I have absolutely no financial or legal benefits from this. I only have the copyright, because I created and wrote this article myself, providing the sources. I am aware that I am transferring the copyright to Wikimedia Commons. Since about 2005/2006 I have been editing Miguel and the Living Dead for free on the Polish wiki. I have been interested in the music of this aesthetic for about 30 years (I have a lot of books, CDs, vinyls, cassettes, all original editions from all over the world). Finally I updated it and decided that it is worth making an English version for MATLD. I have been following the band for years and going to their concerts. I know their biographies very well. I know the musicians (by the way, I know many Polish bands, including some musicians personally, but I decided that there should be an English version for MATLD, because the line-up has become international and the band has played and continues to play with international bands not only in Poland). I sent them the translation and they asked if they could put it on the new page, so I said ok. How could I know that this would be a conflict. I am not their manager. Their page was created by someone else, I don't know this person at all. I just found out by accident that MATLD is being revived and decided to write an article. I regret all this hard work since October 2023 and unfortunately I didn't write this draft in the rough draft. Please help me with this somehow. MKutera74 (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I have undeleted Draft:Miguel and the Living Dead based on the mistaken G12. Please add a section to the talk page of the draft explaining your involvement and the creation of the website, so that future reviewers understand. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

big thanks to you Pickersgill-Cunliffe. Of course I'll explain everything:) MKutera74 (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@MKutera74: I will add that the tools that commonly check for copyright violation may continue to pick up this draft as an issue, so I would still strongly recommend reaching out to the band in the same way I recommended before and ensuring that they provide the correct attribution on their website. They would still be falsely claiming the copyright to your work. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for the correct way they could provide attribution. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank You Bobby MKutera74 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I wrote about it in the draft discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Miguel_and_the_Living_Dead MKutera74 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Artms

Hi Bobby Cohn -- I wanted to mention that I may be opening a move review over the recently-closed discussion at Talk:Artms. While by pure !votes (8 support, 5 to five) there is arguably only a slight, there were no policy-based arguments raised to rebut the main question in play in the manual of style's direction around reflecting usage in sources -- arguments instead consisted solely of personal stances on why sources should not count or were otherwise inconsistent with the cited policies. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Yaksar: can't say I'm surprised by this message. I would disagree with your assessment of the overall arguments presented, but otherwise you are welcome to open the MR. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course you're not surprised. It's the same flawed logic as the logic to close ESTOILE NAIANT, which also generate false consensus to opposed based on flawed arguments brought by a single editor. So why close it with flawed rationale? 122141510 (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what I've done to be the recipient of your ire: twice now after leaving messages on my talk page you've immediately gone to your user page to add addendums to your diatribe and call me and other editors here "incompetent" and "cognitively impaired to a medically diagnosable degree". You suggest that simply for closing a move discussion as "no consensus" that we "be rewarded with time in a penal colony, as it's also served to enable historical revisionism and as mentioned earlier, genocide denial." [1] Can't say I'm sure of the best way to respond to this kind of message.

Specifically, on your user page, you asked "So why not be able to explain the rationale for rejecting the move request by speaking to policy?" No such question was ever asked. And reviewers of my talk page will note that I am no stranger to re-opening and relisting RMs in light of convincing arguments. I said I was not surprised because, as was even noted by a commentator to the discussion, that the temperature in the RM was becoming a little heated and both sides had begun to talk past each other. So therefore when an editor left a note simply stating their intention to raise it at MR, a notice left on my page without a question to affirmatively respond to, I simply chose to point out what part of their assessment I disagreed with, but otherwise plainly acknowledged receipt of their message in a cordial way.

You again raise your concern with the Estoile Naiant conversation so I'll note I treated your discussion above much in the same manner: I gave my rational when asked but otherwise let sleeping dogs lie.

To answer your question, the fact of the matter is that both those in favor of and opposing the move request presented numerous arguments; some stronger than others on both sides. You dismiss others' arguments out of hand as not being policy based but I disagree, policy was referred to on both sides of the argument, and in closing I can ensure you that I had multiple tabs open and checking where the arguments aligned with policy and where they may have been simply related but not directly controlling in the discussion. I do so because, as I pointed out to you above, I assess consensus (or lack thereof in this instance) by evaluating all arguments and not dismissing anything out of hand, but also evaluating where editors agree and disagree on those policies and conducting an overall balancing test based on those principles. My closing procedure has not varied since you asked previously, and it lead me to this result in this instance.

I myself am indifferent to the result, and I oppose your characterization that I (as if I alone even could) rejected your move request. All I did was close a discussion as having no consensus. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

So then what are the policy-based rationale that give the oppose side merits in these requests? You keep saying you're adhering to policy, but seem incapable of citing them. Then you play the same game a lot of editors do, hiding behind "no consensus" as if that's an acceptable rationale for anything.

"The title is wrong." / "Why is it wrong?" / "No consensus."

How does that make any sense? 122141510 (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, you participated in the RM and engaged with the different discussions yourself. I'm not going to summarize or give a timeline of the different arguments and participants. I am also not going to re-engage with those discussions with you, to do so would put me in the position of arguing for the oppose side because you don't see that other editors can have different opinions from yours and still be valid.

I'm also not arguing the title is wrong or policy is wrong—again, the policies that I am adhering to are the ones regarding closing discussions and determining consensus.

What I will tell you is that I evaluated:

• All the arguments around TM and TMRULES, and the different opinions and interpretations of those that supported and opposed the move;
• The extent to which COMMONNAME considers capitalization, and how editors thought it ought to apply here, as well as the guidance pages that offer advice on interpreting policy;
• The extent to which AT was the controlling policy, and the supporting pages such as TITLETM that offer interpretation;
• The concerns that editors had about the different sources provided, including—but not limited to—the origin language of the sources and the concerns that sources would be unfairly discounted because of language;
• Concerns editors had about capitalization and stylization as discussed in CAPS and ALLCAPS, and the meta-argument around that about what the threshold should be to meet the guidance of the main argument;
• The arguments about respecting biographical article's subjects as supported by IDENTITY and BIOEXCEPT;
• The arguments for and against treating the title as an acronym or an ABBR;
• The argument against the move because of consistency, and the rebuttals to that idea that capitalization stylization sometimes requires too much of a burden of overwhelming support sources, as well as the rebuttal that consistency is often over applied and the warnings in EMERSON;
• The accusations that capitalization would just be marketing and the meta-argument that who are we to decide which RS are independent or marketing machines for an industry as a whole;
• Even accusations that certain arguments did or did not apply to the discussion, and to a lesser extent, the idea that one side might be arguing ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT.

In considering and weighing the above, I found that:

• Both those arguing for and against the move presented stronger and weaker arguments, that
• Had no reason to be plainly discounted or ignored, such that
• Editors were not able to arrive at even a rough consensus, and
• Even following a previous realist, the conversation did not be appearing to go in the direction of one side garnering convincing support.

Again, I'm having a difficult time interpreting your question here—I don't think you're incapable of understanding what a no consensus closure is, and you participated actively in the discussion about the interpretations of the arguments so I know you know the other side presented those arguments. I would be happy to expand on any one or more of the points above if you'd like. Is there an argument that you think (1) I didn't properly consider or (2) ought to ignore on the oppose side? Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Thanks for reviewing Kappathorai

Cltr (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

👍 —Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Section renamed from "Thank you also for reviewing Singa, Arunachal Pradesh"

Cltr (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cltr: you are most welcome, but I don't need a thank you for everything. Your continued work is thanks enough! Keep up the good work on Wikipedia. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Mary Conway Kohler draft

Would you be able to review my draft of this article, and let me know of any improvements I can make. As you know, I've had difficulty publishing this draft previously so I'd like to get it right. Henrybardklein (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Henrybardklein, I don't typically do reviews upon request, but I am happy to conduct some simple copy editing. I'll let you know. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Henrybardklein there are a few outstanding sections and claims that are unsourced. I've tagged them as such. I've also conducted copy editing to bring the article closer inline with our WP:Manual of Style. The biggest thing remaining however, is you cite to "Ibid" multiple times in the article but I cannot find the full citation. Can you provide me with:

• the author's full name
• the full title
• the year
• the publisher
• any additional information you might have, such as location, ISBN, or edition.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for going over the Mary Conway Kohler article. Where can I find the version with your corrections? Henrybardklein (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Henrybardklein it has been published and can be found at Mary Conway Kohler. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Name

Hey. Just wanted to say that I thoroughly approve of your username Bobby Cohn. Great name, great book! Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Paul Vaurie, thanks for your message here, I'm absolutely tickled that someone caught it and appreciates it as well! Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

:-)
I can't be the first person to point it out, can I? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: You are, though it is a recent change. It's one of my favourite books and the character is an interesting foil, so I thought it would be perfect for an online alias. So first to get the reference after a little over one month isn't terribly long. I'm impressed you got it, even with the change Robert → Bobby. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Kinan Mohammed

Kinan Mohammed, born on April 17, 2009, in Baghdad, Iraq, is recognized as the youngest sports photographer in Iraq and Asia. With nearly five years of experience, Kinan has established himself as a prominent figure in sports media, not only as a photographer but also as a live broadcast co-director. He is a member of the Erbil Sports Club Media Office and has served as an official photographer for the Iraqi Premier League for many years. Kinan’s expertise extends to covering prestigious events such as the AFC Champions League and the 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifiers, where his work has been widely acclaimed for capturing the intensity and spirit of sports. His remarkable journey in sports photography showcases his dedication and talent, making him a notable figure in the field at such a young age. Kinanmo0 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kinanmo0: everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced. Are there WP:Independent and WP:Reliable sources that back up the promotional claims you've made in your draft?

Further, your username also suggests this is an autobiography. Have you read the full context of the user warning I left on your talk page? Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

On your GA nomination of Manhood

Hello, I would be willing to review your submission of Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs if you let me go a bit slower than standard rules. I might be able to start this weekend, but real life might mean that I won't be able to finish completely and might need to use next weekend or even the week after that. I don't want to start something I'm not sure if I can finish but analysis of semi-decent ideas gone awry is my jam right now. If that sounds okay, I would be happy to review it! Peace and good vibes! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @HistoryTheorist, I am okay with a slower review on your end (this is my first GAN, so I am okay with a slower pace if it will require time to bring to GA standard). Just so long as the review doesn't get forgotten about completely, I understand we're all volunteers here! Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ha! I want to do a GAN myself (see: Uwe Holmer if you're curious) but I need to find a semi-obscure source to reconfirm some early life details. I need to do some real-life business, but I will definitely get working on it this evening! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HistoryTheorist -- HistoryTheorist (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relocation of an article

Hi Bobby Cohn. I had submitted the article "Ciragan Incident" and it is now a stub. But the problem is that there are also existing articles about this incident in different languages, while the english version has been created as a new separate article. Therefore the english version should also be included in english section of the already existing article. In fact, when I created this article, I intended to include it in the english section of the existing article, but since I am not experienced user, I wasnt allowed to add a new language for it. I had only one option and it was to submit a new article. I thought you would notice and locate it in the right place, but it seems I was wrong. Marcus65537 (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Marcus65537, I am happy to assist but I need more information about the different articles. I am having trouble locating all the articles you mentioned. Can you provide me with the different links of the articles you want to join? Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The Article in turkish: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87%C4%B1ra%C4%9Fan_Bask%C4%B1n%C4%B1?wprov=sfla1. The Article I created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87%C4%B1ra%C4%9Fan_incident?wprov=sfla1. Thank you in advance. Marcus65537 (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Marcus65537  Done the pages have been linked on Wikidata so that the languages link in the top corner will connect them to az:Çırağan hadisəsi and tr:Çırağan Baskını. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Memory Lane

Hi Bobby,

My name is Marijn de Wit, and I am the writer of the Dutch movie Memory Lane. I appreciate a Wikipedia page for Memory Lane, so I am greatful to you. However, the way it is now, the director is mentioned as first writer, and then me. In truth, the idea of Memory Lane was mine from conception, and I wrote 95% of the screenplay over ten years time. The director then made some adjustments in the months before shooting.

I was generous enough to allow him to have writing credits, but would appreciate if the names could be reversed on Wikipedia: as I am the main writer, my name should be first. Only then Jelle de Jonge should be mentioned as writing assistant, if things were to be fair.

Thanks again, and warmly,

Marijn de Wit Emdeewee (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Emdeewee, your best bet is to find a source that demonstrates the information in the correct order you want it to appear in the article, and make a {{edit COI}} edit request on the article's talk page or follow the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard tool.

All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Argy DJ page

Hi Bobby, can you please give me some more insight as to why you're querying Argy's notability? Any other guidance would be much appreciated. Mgoldenbarnes (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mgoldenbarnes, I tagged it because I don't presently believe the sources present in the article—nor could I find sources in my own search that—demonstrate the subject meets our notability guidelines as laid out in WP:GNG, specifically WP:ANYBIO or WP:MUSICBIO. I left the tag as a part of our WP:NPP process in hopes that someone familiar with the subject, such as yourself, might add some references that demonstrate notability.

Sources that demonstrate notability must be WP:Independent of the subject (not interviews or publications from the subject) and WP:Secondary and come from WP:Reliable sources (specifically not user generated content or organizations such as Discogs) and they must cover the subject of the article in depth. There is further advice about this at WP:THREE. Alternatively, notability can be established by meeting a subject-specific notability guidelines (WP:SNG) like the aforementioned MUSICBIO above.

My recommendation would be to attempt to address the notability concerns using adequate sources. Note my advice on Discogs (you can read more at WP:DISCOGS) and that YouTube videos and content published by the subject do not go towards notability. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Hope this helps, Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey Bobby, thanks for responding. That's really helpful and I'll go back and adjust the submission asap.

All the best, Marcus. Mgoldenbarnes (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

new references Cecimonster vs Donka Delilah

I just added a new references from Mexico and venezuela as well as one From Peru. there are many more but i dont know how many more references wikipedia needs. thank you Bobby Srapostrock (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Srapostrock, well done on finding three reviews of the album.  Article published, I have tagged it as a stub; I would recommend expanding on the reviews written in a "Reception" section as well as checking to see if the album has charted anywhere. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs

The article Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs for comments about the article, and Talk:Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HistoryTheorist -- HistoryTheorist (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Plant micro-reserve

Hello Bobby Cohn, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Plant micro-reserve. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #13.

GMH Melbourne (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Parental rights movement

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Parental rights movement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FishLoveHam -- FishLoveHam (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Unintentionally scrambled the biobox. Can you reinstitute or tell me how?

Unintentionally scrambeled the biobox. Can you tell me how to reinstitute it. Henrybardklein (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Scrambled biobox unintentionally

I was correcting the book reference at the end of the box, and that seems to have created the problem. I didnt make the biobox and am not familiar with them. Sorry for the headache. Henrybardklein (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Henrybardklein, the infobox has been corrected. An infobox is a type of template, if you wanted more information on how they are used on Wikipedia in the future. While editing, if you aren't sure about the changes being made to an article, make sure to use the Show preview to avoid mistakes. All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Help with sourcing

(Swamini Brahmaprajnananda) Hello, I hoping you can help me figure out what other references can be added to this page to clear this "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification.' The person who created the page used two resources, talking the information directly from the living person. Since the person to whom the page is created is not particularly famous, I don't know what other references there could be other than her own words to describe her life. Is there a specific section that needs more references than another. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. 24.34.93.198 (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This has been on my radar. I concur, if there isn't much to be found to demonstrate notability other than the subject's own words, then we ought not to host promotional content here. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

SAKE CHALLENGES

Dear Bobby Cohn,

Thank you very much for reviewing my work. I will make efforts to improve it.

Regarding the reliable sources, could you clarify where I should include them? I have already added all the articles related to the event with links below the references section. There are 12 references from Milan, Bordeaux, and Singapore articles.

Best regards,

Waxilo

Waxilo (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Waxilo, you have a lot of different things going on and I think you may be confusing proper references with different ideas, and there are some problems with your draft I'm going to try and address:

1. All of your inline external links are inappropriate. If an organization or subject on Wikipedia has an article about them on-wiki, then it is appropriate to link to them in the body of the article. But otherwise, just a select few relevant links may be included in an "External links" section. (I will address this later, but this raises some promotional concerns which make it more difficult to get approved.)
2. These external links are not references in the body of the article as they are just simply links to organizations' homepages. A reference would be an article that talks about the subject. Consider:
   • The Power Broker is a biographical novel about Robert Moses and may be used to talk about things in Moses' life. Y Acceptable source.
   • spotify.com is the homepage of Spotify but doesn't actually tell me anything about their history, and would not be a good citation for the section on corporate history their article. N Unacceptable source.
3. You do list some references collectively at the end, but because you haven't included these inline (in the way that you have with the Wikipedia links, as they are formatted in superscript numerals) it makes it difficult to verify the content you've written. You'll first need to identify what article text it is you want to use those citations to reference, and be sure they properly cite that material inline. See Help:Referencing for beginners for a further explanation on this topic.

Writing a Wikipedia article is not as simple as it might seem; I having been doing this for some time and I think you may have written it backwards. It seems you may have written what you know about the subject, and then appended some references to it at the end. We have a guidance essay about this at WP:BACKWARD. My suggestion is to

1. Start by finding as many sources on the topic as possible.
2. Then, to write, summarize what a source has to say, or take relevant facts from a source to include in the article. For each source, when you're adding this material, make sure to cite things inline.
3. Don't worry about formatting. This can be done later, and Wikipedia and the AfC team has lots of people who will help out. By including a lot of links to external organizations, people get the sense that you may instead be here to promote something or someone, and even if it wasn't your intent, it will unfortunately make it more difficult to have a draft article published.

There is a lot more guidance about this at Help:Your first article. By writing it this way, it will help demonstrate that you've pulled information from WP:Reliable, WP:Independent and WP:Secondary sources, something the team at AfC knows to keep their eye out for when reviewing drafts, as it will demonstrate WP:Notability. Notability is a threshold and something that is required for a subject to have an article on Wikipedia.

Hope this helps, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Waxilo, I've done some cleanup by removing citations to Wikipedia pages that following their inline links, and placing references in the proper style behind the content. I've removed external links from the body and placed them in their own section at the end, and the articles that were included in their own section have been transformed into a "Further reading" section. It should now begin to look more like a typical Wikipedia article. Your next step should be to use those articles to write about the topic of a "sake competition" using those sources, and remove anything that isn't backed up by those sources or is not related to the subject of the article and may be considered promotional. Again, my recommendation is that your read Help:Your first article and WP:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. Make sure you're not just talking about the London Sake Challenge in particular, we already have that article and there is no use in repeating the specifics of that article in an article about the broader topic. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Bobby Cohn,

Thank you very much for all your help.

I am very happy to be part of Wikipedia.

I appreciate your assistance and all the recommendation you provided.

Thank you

Waxilo Waxilo (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)