User talk:CohenTheBohemian

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, CohenTheBohemian! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest going through with your report on the user who reverted your edit on the Arado page. I'd also like to suggest you look into BilCat for reverting your edit without proper justification and misuse of his rollback privileges. Same things been happening to me. Being told to discuss your efit and then being told on the discussion your edit isnt justified and wont be allowed only because they dont like it and are lazy. Just my 2 cents. GansMans (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use rollbacks to revert him. Sorry to disappoint you, Gans. If you do report me or any other editor, Cohen, I wouldn't recommend calling anyone "lazy", as that may be considered a

personal attack. BilCat (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I've commented on the Ar 234's talk page, and I'll try to work with you on what I can. BilCat (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice too; I'll reply on the Ar 234 talk page. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice! I'll bear it in mind. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How fucking soft are you that lazy is considered a personal attack? Go ahead and report and see what happens. I'm seriously considering taking action over your abuse of privileges because this is getting ridiculous. GansMans (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising the question about moving the page to The Scholars (novel) , for following through, and for changing the titles on all those other articles!ch (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and support! Not to mention doing the real work of adding sources. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	A barnstar for a fellow WikiGnome. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Not at all, and thank you for the correction. There certainly is a lot to learn here. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to

Unisex name

added links pointing to Rosalind, Yarden, Juri and Shahar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Venessa Ferns promotional / non-neutral disruptive editing on Chetan Bhagat. Thank you. AP 499D25 (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AP 499D25 Thanks for letting me know, even if I couldn't join in the discussion. Glad they're been blocked. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CohenTheBohemian, I'm very sorry to have put you to any sort of trouble here. I've reverted the article to the state it was in before I touched it, and have put its title back to the original History of fantasy also; since this is simply a reversion, the history remains intact. I won't edit the article again. Once more, my apologies, and thank you for all the work you do on fantasy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your gracious reply, and thank you for reverting the page - it looks like a complicated task. Please don't feel embarrassed to edit it again, or that I'd oppose you doing so; we are all working together here. And thank you, too, for all the work you do on fantasy - an order of magnitude more than I. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! While doing some

Thank you very much for your kind words. What a nice surprise! I've submitted a nomination; fingers crossed. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Fortress Unvanquishable, Save for Sacnoth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lord Dunsany's story "The Fortress Unvanquishable, Save for Sacnoth" may feature "the most original method of dragonslaying ever devised"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Fortress Unvanquishable, Save For Sacnoth. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Fortress Unvanquishable, Save for Sacnoth), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification! CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CohenTheBohemian, I just added the review to the article. I enjoyed it and think it's good for a DYK, but a bit of work still needed. I'm sorry for the red X marks; that's not me, but the template software; just means that some work is needed, mainly on cites. Have also given a suggestion about slight re-phrase to the hook; I think moving the reference to John Company up in the hook is more effective, but please take a look. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at your comments right away. Sorry for the delay; some stuff IRL is slowing me down a bit recently. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ps - I smile everytime I see your user name. Well-done! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Now has a check mark and good to go! Thanks for pointing out the portal for game boards; I wasn't aware of it. (I picked this article for a DYK review because of the history/literature, which I do know a bit about, but wasn't familiar with the game board info. Now I'm going to go over to the portal and check it out for old SPI games!) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all your help! I'm glad I could repay you in some measure. And please, no need to apologise for real life coming first.

PS: You're no slouch in the username department yourself. It's so appropriate for this game! CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See why I suggested more citations? 😃 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice was prescient! CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a comment to the article, relying on NOTCITE for the game cards.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I'm reluctant to wade in and look like I'm defending "my article", but I'll keep an eye on the discussion and see if I can help out. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Company (board game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the box cover of the board game John Company shows Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, and George, Prince of Wales, gambling at hazard (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Company (board game). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, John Company (board game)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]