User talk:Bobby Cohn

Click here to leave me a new message.

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)

Ah, that makes more sense then. Thank you for your insight. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Shvarkistanism

Hello, hope your doing good. I was wondering if you could tell me in depth, what an independant source is, because I think this is what was missing? Fkuma (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fkuma, please see the project page WP:Independent sources for the complete explanation. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:.zip

Hello, Bobby Cohn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:.zip, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

my article

Please accept it, its for a prank and its not like anyone is going to look up my exact name, I would love if you accepted it. 12.233.61.211 (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Questions related to the wiki page

The page ‘Ten Universities, One Stage’ is related to a unique dance culture in Hong Kong, which is the university mass dance. The sources cited in the references are all the sources we could find for this topic. What else can we do to have more reliable sources? Thank you.Twinne Yang (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Twinne Yang, two things:

1. In my comment, I left a link to WP:REFB, this describes how to use your citations, properly format them, and use them inline. Please make sure to review that, and then if you have any specific questions I would be happy to help further.
2. Who is "we"? Do multiple people use your account? How are you related to the subject in your draft?

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft reveiw

Hello, could you review my draft ? i have added many sources and removed quite a few as well. Taramayatamang (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Taramayatamang, I don't do reviews upon request. Please be patient, another reviewer will conduct their own review shortly. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Article writing

Help me in creating my article please Dan Merrony (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Dan Merrony. Start by collecting sources that are independent from the subject and cover the subject in significant coverage. Then, summarise what those sources have to say about the subject. YouTube videos, Spotify songs, and Google searches are not reliable sources; remove those. Interviews are not independent but may be used to cite some non-promotional facts. Then, remove anything that isn't cited. See WP:BACKWARDS. If you've found at least three sources that are independent and cover the subject in significant detail such that the subject is notable, then resubmit by clicking the blue button. Do not remove the previous comments left by reviewers. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Bobby Cohn,

I saw your comment from yesterday on ANI about receiving too many notifications. I only see your username mentioned once in this ANI discussion so I don't know why you kept receiving notifications. But you can change whether or not to receive any notifications at all by going into your account Preferences and adjusting these. This is very easy to do on a laptop or desktop, the link is at the top of every page. But I'm not sure of the user interface if you edit with a mobile device. But, for example, I receive no email notices at all unless an editor sends me an email. So, please explore your options here so you won't be so bothered with unnecessary notifications. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Liz, it was that and email (and I thought a talk page ping but I don't see it on the user's talk page so I may be mistake). Like I said, I have no issues with pings because I only get them on-Wiki but I wasn't sure if there was a setting that prevented blocked users from emailing. I know in the preferences I see I can restrict new users but that's it. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Bell Bank

Hi @Bobby Cohn, I left a response in our dialogue exchange for an edit request on Bell Bank and am seeking clarity on the matter. I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. WikiWriter1005 (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @WikiWriter1005, yes it has been on the back of my mind to give you a proper and in-depth response. I will respond there shortly so as to not fracture the discussion. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Braveland Conference

I recently did a complete revision of my Braveland Conference AfC draft, revising the narrative and adding more information to the backstory of the realignment. I also got rid of the high school yearbook citations entirely as I've been finding that they tell a whole lot more about the what than the why of conference realignment. I've instead relied solely on newspaper clippings - basically, if it doesn't have a byline, I'm not interested. Please feel free to check it out and comment. Thanks!

Draft:Braveland Conference - Wikipedia Moserjames79 (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Moserjames79, sorry I never followed up with our previous discussion, but my reading of the discussion at the RSN, now archived at Archive 455 § The use of yearbooks as a source for an external but related organization, says that the concern wasn't really about the reliability of the sources, as you have cited everything adequately (in re: the previous draft), but rather the WP:Notability of the organization. I probably should have framed my question on the noticeboard better, but the idea is that you probably want to find coverage of the conference (not just the games or schools) in WP:Independent sources. Three is often cited as enough when discussed at other venues, see WP:THREE.

Courtesy ping @Headbomb and @ActivelyDisinterested, so as to not misrepresent their comments, or if they would like to offer more advice.

I have not yet read through the new draft, so I cannot comment on the specifics, at least right now. I do see some excessive use of WP:External links that should be removed. I don't think your previous draft, after you cited the sources for the facts, was necessarily that bad. It just needed a better and independent claim to notability. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, this is all good to know. Regarding the use of external links, I've been using them for two things: enrollment data and state championships. The latter has lists by sport on the WIAA website, which are linked on each table. There is also a comprehensive list of all state championships that also includes sports no longer sponsored by the WIAA (i.e. curling, summer baseball, etc.). Would a single link to the comprehensive list be a better use of an external link? Moserjames79 (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest archiving them using the Wayback Machine and then using them as a reference. Describe them appropriately and then follow the popup on WP:INTREF3 as a {{cite web}} with the archive url parameter and date retrieved to allow others to ensure you've propperly verified your work. You can use just one reference at the top of each table as you have, in lieu of the external link. Two are appropriate if, as you say, support different columns. In that case, consider instead placing the citation at the top of the column the data supports. I hope this was clear, I can rephrase or provide an example if this was a lot at once. Let me know, Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

About Eleanna Finokalioti (Eleanna Fin) draft

@Bobby Cohn: Hi Bobby I read your notices about my draft of Eleanna Finokalioti, can you please tell me exactly where are the problems on my article (at references I guess) so I can fix them??

Thanks

George Liristis Georgelgreco (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Georgelgreco: have you read my comment or looked at the draft to see my revisions? At the risk of repeating myself, I've already tagged some of the most problematic sections with {{citation needed}} and {{unreferenced section}}. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bobby again...Yes, I read carefully what you posted...First of all...

1) I George Liristis declare that I don't have any family relationship with Eleanna Finokalioti, I am her biographer and photographer and I want to show to the wikipedia world her work, her talent and her whole story because I think she deserves that..Please tell me if I have to say more about that, to fix the problem.

2) I am going to find more sources foe your other two noticies about Early life and other activities...

Thanks Georgelgreco (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn: I forgot to ping you above Georgelgreco (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Georgelgreco: WP:COI is not only concerned about familial relationships, but other ones as well. The fact that you've chosen to highlight that fact and omit anything else is rather extremely suspect. If she's hired you to be her biographer and photographer, that sounds closer to the policy on WP:PAID editing than just a simple COI, which is not just community guideline but a Wikimedia Foundation policy and you are required to disclose this. Please do so on your userpage. Thank you, Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn: No no. she din't hire me...I do that for free because I believe to her abilities Georgelgreco (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn: Please tell me what exactly to disclose in my page and I will do that.... Georgelgreco (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Go to User:Georgelgreco.
2. Top right hand corner, click Create source.
3. Copy and paste {{paid|employer=Eleanna Finokalioti (Eleanna Fin)}} to the page.
4. Click the blue Publish page link at the bottom.

Thank you kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn: i did that...Can you see it?? Georgelgreco (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Georgelgreco: yes, thank you. You are now in compliance with the Wikimedia policy on paid editing.

Small note, I made a minor change, you can see that I did it using this link: Special:Diff/1258988038. I gave you the wrong parameter but the end result makes it look better. Compare Special:PermaLink/1258988038 with Special:Diff/1258987546. My apologies if this caused any confusion, sometimes Wikipedia templates trip up the best of us, but it should be fine now. If you are okay with it, no further action is required on your part on your user page.

I look forward to you addressing the maintenance tags on your draft.

All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn: Thank you very much....So after that are you able please to remove the first notice (A major contributor to this article appears to have...etc) on my article?? Georgelgreco (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That actually butts up on the edge of my knowledge, I will be honest with you @Georgelgreco. I'm going to give a tentative answer below and invite the editor who tagged it to weigh in here, @DoubleGrazing.

On one hand, it no longer "appears" and the appropriate template is now on the talk page.

On the other hand, the page still needs to be checked for neutrality. But that's why it's in the draft space.

I'm inclined to wait before making any action. Rest assured however, that because you've followed the correct procedure and that it will be reviewed before being published, the message won't be placed on the article once reviewed and published at AFC. Sorry I don't have a better answer for you right now. My suggestion would be to focus on the citation issues, the rest will eventually fall into place. There is no rush to these things. —Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Bobby Cohn. The draft might still need cleanup, but now that the COI has been disclosed, I'm happy to remove that tag.

Thanks for the disclosure, @Georgelgreco. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, was going to remove the tag, but Timtrent is always two steps ahead of me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I follow from the front! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn:I am working now to our other two notices about 1) Early life and Education and 2) Other Activities..and I do my best to follow 100% all what you want about me...

@DoubleGrazing: Thanks for what you wrote...If there is anything else I have to do by my side please tell me... Georgelgreco (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn: I can see now this:

This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.

What means cleanup?? Can I remove it with editing by myself? Georgelgreco (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Georgelgreco: don't remove banners that you haven't placed or addressed. The key phrase is "may require". Rest assured that once accepted, it will mean that your draft has been checked and the tag will be removed before your article is published. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

To be scrupulously fair, a reviewer may decide, even with the banner present, that it stands a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process (assuming notability is verified), and may accept it as a borderline case. In that case that banner would remain. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Here I sit, wearing my rose-coloured glasses, 20-odd replies later pondering the philosophy of AfC, the intersection of N and NOT, and their impacts at AfD. Someone better give me another task before I'm lost to a self-reflective rabbit hole. Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I love it!

I suppose the simple explanation is that AFC takes out the trash and lets good potential material through, while making mistakes.

By design, but not always by implementation by all reviewers, it is intended to be helpful, encouraging, and also an optional gatekeeper.

The wild west days when pretty much anything could end up in mainspace also had paradoxically less pressure on AfD

Your new task is to ponder the extra intersection of N and NOT with K and KNOT 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

25 November 2024

@Bobby Cohn: I did major changes and corrections to my article about Eleanna Finokalioti (Eleanna Fin)

1) I found and corrected ALL archived links for every reference source

2) I removed movies movies and Tv shows without reference sources

3) I removed a section OTHER ACTIVITIES because I don't have source to put on refereces

4) I added critical proof about IFPI charts on10th week of 2017 about the album

5) I added new section about Radio appearances

So, please can you fix the appearance of section Radio appearance?? Because I can't do it well...

Tell me what other is for fixing....

Thanks so much Georgelgreco (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Georgelgreco, I've removed some of the maintenance tags {{unreferenced section}}, but I have not conducted a check of the references or assessed the subject's notability. I will say that some places look like WP:CITEKILL. Once a fact is demonstrated by a WP:RS, it is acceptable. Two is alright for contentious or big claims. Anything else is gilding the lily and will often raise the suspicious of AfC reviewers. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn: Thanks for your quick responce. Please when you finish a checking of references, tell me if I hove issues (and where are the problems) so I have to find other sources, or remove something...And after that please tell me when to resubmit it...

Thanks so much Georgelgreco (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Georgelgreco, in addition to your cite overkill issues, something else you should consider is the phrasing throughout the article. Let me give an example:

Finokalioti has actively embraced the stage since 2010 (Human Voices), engaging in a professional career as an actress and singer.

References

Your references do demonstrate she acted in Human Voices in 2010. So, as above, you only need one. Then: "has actively embraced the stage"? That's not neutral. In fact, it sounds pretty promotional. Checking the references show that that hasn't been said about the subject. So we can't say it here. If it has been said, then it should be attributed.

That's the kind of wording that is cause for concern about the {{coi}} tag, see the wording "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view."

I would recomend, now that you've added the citations to facts, going through it with a fine tooth comb and making it sound neutral. Neutral is dry.

Look at it this way, neutral phrasing is boring. The facts themselves are interesting and should speak for themselves. Anything else is WP:PUFFERY and won't help in making sure the COI tag is removed.

All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn: Thanks for your notices...So you suggest to keep just one reference for every source?? Also I completely understant about neutral. I will configure out it later, wherever need it...

thanks again Georgelgreco (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn:Hello again...I changed the phrase "Finokalioti has actively embraced the stage since 2010 (Human Voices), engaging in a professional career as an actress and singer"with someting simple and neutral keeping just one reference. Georgelgreco (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn: Do you believe I am ready to resubmit the draft?? Georgelgreco (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you've already gotten to it. Best of luck, Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft - Jack Rechcigl

I hope you're doing well! I was wondering if you could help me get started with editing my article about Jack Rechcigl. Would it be okay if I start by revising just a few paragraphs to make sure I’m following your guidance correctly? Also, I wanted to clarify something you mentioned earlier about the references being his works. I think I might have misunderstood—some of the books I cited are actually by his father, Miloslav Rechcigl, Jr. (or Mila Rechcigl). Should I avoid mentioning Mila Rechcigl's books in the article? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Thanks, Claudia AgroLover (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AgroLover, yes, please do continue to make improvements to the draft article. It has been a while so I while have to refresh my recollection and look at the draft again; it strikes me as odd to use a source authored by the subject's father in reference about the subject, but nonetheless I will take a fresh look at it shortly. In the meantime, I would suggest you review Help:Your first article and WP:42; and I always recommend background reading WP:Writing Wikipedia articles backward to those making revisions to drafts.

Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AgroLover, I have some early thoughts and I'll use this space to keep track of my thinking.

1. There are a lot of unsourced paragraphs. AfC editors often struggle to ensure that sources are not bombarded or things are not referenced correctly—especially in a biography of a living person—when the draft doesn not use citations throughout. I think the draft would be greatly improved quickly and with little effort by ensuring that all paragraphs are cited. If you don't have a citation for something, cut it. This is explained better in the essay WP:BACKWARD, as pointed to above.
2. There's definitely some WP:CITEKILL here. Once a fact has been verified once, it doesn't need another citation. Two is fine if you're trying to show consensus or a controversial fact. Anything more is gilding the lily. See my earlier comment about AfC reviewers, sometimes we can be a finicky bunch to understand, and this looks like you're trying to sneak something past us.
3. I'm going to give an example of a more problematic issue. See § Florida Agricultural Expo, this section is arguably more about the expo than the subject Dr. Rechcigl himself. Add facts about the subject and maybe some explanations about the history and how the subject's story intertwinds with it, but don't use the space to promote or explain the history of the Florida Agricultural Expo. Most of that section could be cut. This is just an example, but an editing philosophy that should be applied to the entire article.
4. The international section suffers from quite a few issues: it is largely unsourced and mostly promotional. Again, only write things that have been covered by other sources. If it wasn't and you've written about this because it was your knowledge or someone else told it to you, cut it. If it isn't documented in a source, it doesn't serve our readers to write about it here, and this is the largest section that gave me reason to believe this draft was written backwards. Instead, start by collecting sources that do speak about the subject's international work and then summarise those and cite to them. In doing so, you will naturally find that the writing is less promotional and be more suitable for it's inclusion in a well-sourced encyclopedia. A by-product of which is that you will have helped in demonstrating the subject's notability (see WP:Notability, more specifically WP:NPROF), and prevented the article from being excluded by our WP:NOT policy.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For attempting to clean up Jin Guiyun. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey @I dream of horses, many thanks! Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ruger LC carbine

I saw that you requested the LC carbine wikipedia page to be deleted. I object to this ruling & I didn’t give you my consent to delete it. So, take down the selection request please. Stormm001 (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Stormm001, the community will decide based on consensus, please make an appropriate argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruger LC carbine. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Alex Spellman

I think he passes WP:NATHLETE, assuming Darts to be an athletic pursuit(!), so accepted it. I will not quarrel with redraftification nor AfD, in which I will not participate unless my presence is requested, when I will renain neutral. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You know, after review, I think I agree. This did send me down a rabbit hole (Split in darts) to track the NATHLETE criteria but I think you're right. Self reverted the notability tag. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I suspect WP:NPASTIME ought to be created for fat blokes throwing pointy stuff at a target in a bar room! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NBEERLEAGUE ought to have the same physicality requirements, but for people across the pond in a certain commonwealth country that like shooting frozen bits of rubber with sticks while standing on knives on ice. Then maybe I'll get an article too. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

🤡 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Desh Pal S. Verma Biography- This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

 Courtesy link: Draft:Desh Pal S. Verma

Hi bobby! I know its not common practice to review the same page over and over again but i really enjoyed your through and helpful feedback! If you have the time could you please review Dr.Deshpal Verma's biography? I was having issues regarding my sources not being reliable enough. The first four sources of the biography I believe are the issue but I cannot for the life of me find the proper way to cite these sources as most of the awards or accolades were given to dr. verma back in the 60-80's and the internet was not around back and i cannot seem to find an archive of previous award winners. For instance, citation #1 under the stacie award he recieved in 1981 he is listed on the website as a former winner however since he won it so many years ago however there isnt a profile listed for him. next citation #2 for the RSC I just linked his page under the member directory under the year he was elected (1986). Next citation #3 for the MPMI i listed an old archive file for volume 1 issue 1 which dr.verma helped edit. Lastly for Citation #4 I linked the university of picarde jules verne website but i cannot find any list of former laureate winners (honorary Ph.D) I mean the guy has a medal to prove it and all haha. I hope this makes sense, I really appreciate your time and effort you've spent helping me! I hope you have a good thanksgiving! Vermadesh (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Vermadesh, if you think then everything is as well cited as it can be, you are welcome to resubmit. My suggestion would follow that of WP:BACKWARDS, but maybe a little less-harshly. Without having considered the sources myself, and going off of your understanding of them:

1. If citation one appends the statement "received National Research Council's Steacie Award given by the Governor General of Canada Edward Schreyer in 1981 for being the best young scientist is his field" but only supports "received National Research Council's Steacie Award given by the Governor General of Canada Edward Schreyer in 1981" but not "for being the best young scientist is his field", then cut the later part of the sentence.
2. If I'm understanding you correctly that the source demonstrates the year he was elected and all the statement says is "He was later elected as the Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and the member of the Canadian Academy of Sciences in 1986" then this would be acceptable, provided the source gives verification for both these organisations.
3. Citation number 3 I did open to get a better understand of what you're talking about. It looks like the article that accompanies the opening volume lists the subject as "Senior Editor for prokaryote symbiosis", see [1]. As such, this citation would properly verify the statement "In 1987 Verma was a Senior Editor for the newly established International Society of Molecular Plant-microbe Interaction" but does not support "founded".
4. Unfortunately, I can't help with this one. Are there WP:OFFLINE citations that would back up this claim. What about a secondary source that describes the subject as having received this award? Does a profile exist anywhere else of him that demonstrates this?

Something else that needs to be discussed. If you are not, as you suggest here, the subject of this article, then your use of his real name as your username here would be against our username policy, see WP:REALNAME. I'm going to leave you a notice on your talk page which should provide further instruction on how you can go about changing it.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Vermadesh,

After my note, I saw that the previous review was particularly concerned about the first 3 citations. I made the changes that I suggested above myself, and did some further tagging for verification of references. I also corrected the lead to just limit to information in the body (see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY) and made it sound neutral. In doing so, I addressed the {{autobiography}} tag. I also rereviewed the draft and tagged some citations for verification myself. But I am now satisfied that the existing maintenance tags and demonstrated notability should not preclude publication of the draft to mainspace. As such, you will see the notification on your talk page now.

Please do address the issues with your username. Further, I would suggest you not edit the mainspace article directly. See our policy on WP:COI, conflict of interest editing. Aside from simply adding the relevant citations where requested, propose any new changes to the article on the talk page, using {{COI edit}} or the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Lat Drop AfC

Hello Bobby Cohn, what are your specific reasons for declining me and what do you suggest I do? SheneganShaw (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SheneganShaw, it looks to me like this topic is not WP:Notable, that is, I'm not seeing significant coverage of the topic. Presently, an entry in a general list manual and a how to video are all that's listed, I would like to see more in-depth coverage if I were to approve an article in the topic. Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

University of Michigan Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Hi Bobby, I believe I have now resolved the HTML issues on this page. Can you confirm they are resolved? Are there any other issues I need to look at? Mhinawi (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mhinawi, the article looks properly formatted now at least. I've removed my comment as it is now redundant. I also removed an external link and converted some to references. Something else you should consider is writing a lead section. You just need to give a brief description and summary of the subject. You can read more at WP:LEAD. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn I have written a lead and added an infobox. Mhinawi (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

My Draft:Shin_Heike_Monogatari_(novel)

Hello Bobby, may I start with your comments on my article Shin Heike Monogatari with regard notability. This issue is cleared. Shin Heike Monogatari is better known as "New Tale of the Heike". Wikipedia hat the articles "Shin Heike Monogatari (films)" and "Shin Heike Monogatari (TV)". I found also several translations in English. So the English reading communities know already about it. The next topic you discussed was foot notes. I want to make it easier. You find my recent, improved draft. Please check it and let me know what your assessment is. Yutaka Hayauchi (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Yutaka Hayauchi, your draft only has citations to the novel itself, but if you are so sure you've demonstrated notability then go ahead and resubmit, I shan't decline it, given my attempt to proffer advice. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I will go ahead. I cited in my presentation the assessment of Prof. Shimamura, a Japanese literatur scientist. In each books of the novel in Japanese, one finds appendixes with his literature assessments. Foot notes simply point the volume numbers of the novel, but in them, we find the appendixes. THere, very comprehensive classifications in the Japanese literature and his thoughts about the intensions of Eiji Yoshikawa to the nevel are included as independent discussions. Yutaka Hayauchi (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)