User talk:Bobby Cohn

SCAM WARNING! If someone contacts you asking for money to get a draft published, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article—do not trust them! These offers are scams. Report them to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. See WP:SCAM for more information.

Notices, archives and other talk page banners.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Archives: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me. This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. This user talk page often deals with similar or reoccurring topics. Please use a descriptive section title when leaving a new message. Generic titles of messages may be refactored for clarity, such as renaming the section title to a link of the topic page. This user is a regular and doesn't mind if you template him . Though he will appreciate if you expand on your reasoning should your concern not be immediately apparent.

Hello Dear Bobby, I am writing to you addressing my recent concern of my draft article.

MR. Cohn I have tried many times to publish the article around the climbing Athlete and I have made various points to perspective around the article, I did my part of researching for better composing and displaying for the article regarding "Ahmad Bani Hani" and thank of filling every required field to optimisé reading incredibly and article richness.

From where I started my problem were obviously around citations, then I explored some facts with other reviewing partners at Wikipedia of which the formal article frame should be, were as; the notability missing, over paragraphic, missing of secondary sources. then, I found each problem and tried to fix it many times.

Now, I'm feeling little bounded to the article and want it to be visible on Wikipedia. The thing here, is that I'm seriously not getting why it's still pending for now. And I need help of summarizing the relatives of the article.

Why it's keeping getting rejected by our community and why it is not supported until the moment? is there some one who can give me live update on editing it, if that option is offered it can be real helpful; cause in this way it would turn me way good and fasten time for me to leave a clean and proper draft for you and other colleges to review.

Best Regards, Mustafa Thahabi MustafaAldahabi (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

significant coverage to establish Wikipedia:Notability. These are larger problems, especially notability, that are the cause of my—and likely others'—declinations. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Mr. Bobby Chon

Thank you for your rich reply.

I Am confident that you spotted the faults of my paragraphic writing yet to be handled and properly managed.

I understand ninety eight percent of what you directed me to start leading with and come up with more encyclopedic engagement text writings.

Now I feel different, okay. Why?

Hence I tried to make the reasonable mode of the writings around the persona which occupies a spotlight on camping and climbing atheletisim. I come to realize that the effort been done to perpetual the senario of on-going-the-fact and every potent mentioning into-the-stuff were I recognized where I was concentrating Alway

Here is why I am making my point here of showing tolerance with the identity but yet not catching where that hidden spotlight is aiming.

Perhaps my texting here is too long or too short, or not briefing or more than a briefing hence.

Okay, I see where is the located issue, it's uprising since I started working on it from first time.

Were I was about creating something else? for sure, and further does this writing put in place the complete factors of such an article, I emphasize to appeal that too. YES

Closely to make an approve perhaps on finishing each attempt in just over realizing that the resources I am experiencing cannot be applied with Wiki's

I will try to scroll harder, the I'll let you notified. Good Sat; positive Fri noon.

And Sincerely appreciated,

Mustafa Aldahabi

Regards MustafaAldahabi (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

whyd u stop working on the fancy that page for pinkpantheress? Jonathanxqz1 (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathanxqz1 I have no idea what this is in reference to. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathanxqz1 found it. The article Draft:Fancy That has been moved to the draftspace where it can be improved, as the previous version in the mainspace had no sources. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobby,

I saw you have declined the page about "Groovy Banana", as Groovy Banana is based and well known in Vanuatu, it appears that their main exposure is through media from Vanuatu such as National radio and TV (VBTC, 98FM, etc..) however, in Vanuatu, Facebook is a big thing and those links are therefore Facebook links (lives etc..). Any way those links could be considered as relevant for the page to be accepted?

Thanks so much for your attention, Gaga Gaaaga (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

WP:ORGCRIT

to see the threshold concerns for having an article on this particular group.

In addition, your username aligns with a member of the group. If you are this person, you have a conflict of interest and Wikipedia asks that you disclose this connection and refrain from writing articles about things you have a connection to. I will re-iterate this warning on your talk page.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have used various refrences which have links to news websites and also a refence was directly from a youtube video , how these are un verifiable Nigam Pranjal (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

WP:V), especially in a biography of a living person

, which have a higher standard for inline citations.

In addition, interviews and other non-independent sources may be used to verify some non-promotional material; in general they do not count for

WP:42

."

Hope that helps, let me know if you have any other questions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like someone untrained in metaphysics trying to do materialist metaphysics. But, as I read materialist metaphysicians I've seen the *good* version of these arguments before. IE: one that doesn't try to go directly to "the brain is structured just like the universe" when trying to extrapolate an ontology from a metaphysics. Is this basically what I'm seeing here? Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: That's kinda what I read too, and said better than when I tried here with "in-universe" using not as many words. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: Then again, my training is in environmental microbiology and I'm a chemist, so I'm not sure how close my expertise falls on the scale of purity to materialist metaphysics and "a dynamic and unbroken totality that underlies all of reality."

Probably downfield I would imagine. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Graham Harman argues against this sort of monism. He's not my favourite but, then again, my favourite is Quentin Meillassoux who argues that all physical laws must be seen as contingent in a turn away from Kant in favour of Hume. But this is part of what I mean by this being amateur. Look at Deleuze's work on Liebniz and the idea of the monad and you can see that even those materialist philosophers who entertain monism tend to be somewhat skeptical of it or seek to problematize it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]