User talk:Bobby Cohn

Click here to start a new discussion.

Nuero-Electric Therapy

 Courtesy link: Draft:Neuro-electric therapy

Hello Bobby Cohn, Thank you for taking the time to review my recent submission, Draft:Neuro-electric therapy. I appreciate the clear and actionable feedback you provided regarding the lack of citations and the promotional tone. Based on your comments, I have substantially rewritten the entire draft. I went through and added inline citations for every claim to ensure full verifiability and stripped out any language that could be perceived as promotional to maintain a strictly neutral, encyclopedic point of view. I also added several independent, secondary sources (from publications like Forbes and Rolling Stone) for historical context to better establish notability. I have just resubmitted the revised draft for review. If you have a moment, I would be very grateful for your feedback on the changes. Thank you again for your time and guidance. OpiateFreedom (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @OpiateFreedom, I've made changes to the draft to bring it inline with our Wikipedia:Manual of Style, particularly sentence case, formatting, etc. I've done this previously, I would suggest you don't undo these changes again. I've removed honorific titles and the ™ as we don't use those. I've also added a tag to a reference where a secondary source should be used. I'm curious if you have had a moment to review the COI notice I left on your talk page. Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Bobby Cohn,

Thank you very much for your direct feedback and for taking the time to personally edit the draft. Your guidance has been very helpful.

Conflict of Interest: I have reviewed the COI notice and have now placed the standard disclosure template on my user page to be fully transparent about my connection to this topic.

Sourcing: I have addressed tag by adding high-quality, independent, secondary source (The Guardian for the historical claim).

Manual of Style: I have accepted all of your stylistic edits (removal of honorifics, ™, etc.) and will ensure future edits adhere to these standards.

I believe the draft now fully addresses the previous concerns and aligns with Wikipedia's policies on notability, verifiability, and neutrality. Thank you again for helping me improve the article.

OpiateFreedom (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @OpiateFreedom, thank you for making the disclosure, I made a minor change to correct the template syntax. I'm not sure I see the latest revision of the maintenance tag, make sure to save your changes by hitting the blue publish button when editing. You wouldn't happen to be using an AI chatbot such as ChatGPT, would you? If you are, I have some further guidance I think you should read. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bobby Cohn. I mistakenly replied here first before I published the draft. It should now be published. OpiateFreedom (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

As far as a chatbot I'm using Gemini a bit to help with the sourcing and instructionally to help me as I'm pretty new at this. OpiateFreedom (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @OpiateFreedom, not a problem, I see the maintenance tag has been addressed. Nothing wrong with using it to help, but please be mindful that the actual wording in the draft should be reviewed by yourself, AI has a tendency to hallucinate facts. It also does not always get templates correct, as you can see from the error I fixed on your userpage, I would suggest you use the button "Show preview" if you intend to rely on it extensively.

Lastly, though it may be okay to use it for help in writing articles, editors strongly prefer talking to users in their own voice. If you are talking to myself or other editors on the project, please make sure to read the messages we leave yourself first (we've gone to the trouble to write it out for you, we aren't trying to make a computer understand; but we are also always happy to clarify if you have further questions or don't understand) and make sure to write your responses yourself (again, we prefer communicating with you). There is more information on this at WP:AITALK and WP:LLMCOMM—an AI won't know what these shortcuts to policy or guidelines refer to, but they will take a guess and most likely be wrong.

Thank you for your contributions to the project. Happy editing, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi again Bobby Cohn, all that said I am also a patient advocate, who has successfully gone through this treatment. I'll disclose this too on my user page, if appropriate, as I'm not ashamed. OpiateFreedom (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @OpiateFreedom, no need to be ashamed and it is not required, your current disclosure is adequate and all that is required by the Wiki Media Foundation. Thanks again, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi again Bobby Cohn, really appreciate all your help! I just published with all the edits. Hopefully all correct! OpiateFreedom (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to help @OpiateFreedom. Not quite—and because you are being paid, it means an AFC reviewer will need to review it; if accepted, then the templates will be removed, so I've restored those templates (these templates are required if you want it published, it is how reviewers track them and access them). In the mean time, I've left it in the queue, another editor will take a fresh look at it. If you have any other questions in the meantime, I'm happy to help. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Tim Noonan

 Section renamed from Article rejected for Insufficient Sourcing.

Thank you for reviewing my submission. I am happy to make corrections but I need to understand the concern.

I am unclear about this rejection due to inadequately or poorly sourced claims. There are 13 references. The vast majority of the sources are newspaper and magazine articles from established and often major periodicals that are easy to find through the links. , Volume, date, page number, link -- everything is there for most. If its not there it doesn't exist. Other references included books, the UNC library card catalogue, the Association of Tennis Professionals, and a major career management forum in Europe. Again, these links are clear references.

I have written Wikipedia pages for others that were posted with FAR less documentation.

I endeavored to reference every claim, so I am honestly don;t known what else to reference -- I referenced every fact ion the article -- and I don't know what better sources there can be to the ones listed above.

Please clarify and I will gladly amend. As someone who has completed undergraduate, masters and doctoral coursework at Stanford, UN C and Harvard, taught in college, and written over 30 books, I understand citations pretty well. I am honestly at a loss in re. to your comments.

Please advise.

Many thanks,

Tim Noonan Tim Troupe Noonan (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tim Troupe Noonan, let me answer your question with a question. I will quote from Draft:Tim Noonan § Consulting: "He also headed up marketing for the multi-hundred-million dollar gold treasure of the famed 19th century shipwreck, S.S. Central America;". How do we know this? Where did this information come from? Let me know, I do have some further advice based on your response. Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Bobby:

I saw that paragraph was the chief culprit. I wrote the feature for Life magazine on this story (which I will put in) but I will remove my subsequent three-year formal role with the ocean engineering company, which was largely confidential so no public records.. Will remove. will also remove some of my work as adviser to college presidents as I was / am an outside consultant and work outside the org charts, ghosting articles and advising quietly. Also no public record. Will remove. Will add a citation for my podcast, Horsepower to Hyperloops, though.. Easy to do.

Will also put my list of books written in a box as advised.

Of the citations that ARE there -- 13 -- all seem easily verifiable and they are public sources, not private, so nit sure why they are lacking .

Thanks. Much appreciate your response

Tim Tim Troupe Noonan (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Alos, how do you want me to "clean up the lists" of books I have published? Standalone list with a link? Infobox?

Please let me know.

I am in the process of cleaning up the citations issue.

thanks,

Tim Noonan Tim Troupe Noonan (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tim Troupe Noonan, multiple things here:

1. For collecting a list of publications, I would suggest using citation templates: {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} etc. Consider this revision as an example. This is acceptable for a list in the article if the content itself is self-evident. The ISBN of the book is associated with yourself as the author, making this a plainly verifiable fact. Beyond this, nothing is needed.
2. For items you claim to have ghost written, you will of course need a citation saying as such. If one does not exist, then that particular list entry may not written about in the article and will have to be removed. This brings me to the final point ...
3. The indiscriminate refers to both the problems with the citations and verifiability of the list but also the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is two fold, even if you have citations, "merely being true does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. A full portfolio is not the point of an encyclopedic biography. Pare the list down to a select few publications. Alternatively, write the list in biographical prose the follows the ability of the sources to back up statements, and write more than just about being the author.

As for your earlier message, the fact that there were no citations is the fact that they're lacking. I think you've grasped this so I don't understand your further pushback but yes, citing things that are not cited will be required prior to acceptance.

Your own publications such as a podcast or other things like a blogs or self-published websites will not be able to verify things beyond basic facts (i.e., date of publication, existence of something, etc.). There is further information in WP:SELFPUBLISH and in particular WP:ABOUTSELF. Any promotional claims will need to be verified by independent sources.

As far as your understanding on how citations are used to verify statements made, I've particularly examined your Draft:Tim Noonan § Writing section and will discuss it here and explain your misuse or misunderstanding of citations:

He has written and published over 25 books, most privately commissioned through two imprints: Heritage Histories, a custom publisher specializing in bespoke, coffee table corporate and institutional histories and ghostwritten memoirs for individuals, and Midvale Press, a trade imprint specializing in memoirs, histories, and the Practical Wisdom series. In connection with the release of the first book in the series, Things I Wish I’d Known When I Started My Career, Noonan was a keynote speaker at the Career Management School’s Fall 2024 Career Forum, the largest career services conference in eastern Europe and Russia.

References

1. For citation one, a website homepage URL doesn't actually verify what you are looking to say, you need to be specific.
2. For citation two, the same issue persists. A homepage URL is not a real citation.
3. Your book doesn't need to be cited here. This citation template can instead be used in the list as discussed above but this doesn't verify any key fact in the sentence.
4. And the fourth citation has been moved to the fact that it actually supports, if you wish to promote or elevate yourself or the status of the conference, you'll need an independent source for the claim that it is the largest as written, hence the newly added {{independent source needed}} tag.
5. Lastly, a {{citation needed}} tag has been placed on a claim that is not supported, as we've examined above.

This is an up close examination one the problems evident in just one of your paragraphs and your misunderstanding of how sources may be actually used to verify content. At present, even the 13 sources you claim to have are not sufficient for what they've been given for. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and ZoomInfo is just spam and has been blocklisted. So that’s obviously another issue with your citations. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

All great responses and very helpful. Thanks. I earlier downloaded sections of the page so I could make the edits yoiu requested - rewriting citations, adding isbn numbers, etc.

I have been working on it all as instructed. But now cI can;t find the page to make the edits.

Can you help?

Thanks, Bobby

Tim Tim Troupe Noonan (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Ignore previous. I just found it. sorry to trouble you. Edis back soon. Tim Troupe Noonan (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

CMantham wiki article resubmitted

 Courtesy link: User:GayatriSoumyaGudiseva/sandbox

Hi Bobby

Yesterday, you have rejected my article of CMantham with a comment on citations which I corrected, could you please review and approve.

Our movie would be releasing next month and I am the coproducer, request your assistance with the wiki article.

Thanks

Gayatri GayatriSoumyaGudiseva (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @GayatriSoumyaGudiseva, Wikipedia is not the place to write about or promote things that do not otherwise warrant an article. If you are looking to promote your film prior to it's release, I suggest you consider publishing on an alternative outlet. We are not interested in discussions had by the film maker—about, for example, intent to license home distribution—unless it's already been stated by reliable, independent, and secondary sources. If it hasn't been said by those sources previously, we can't say it, we aren't interested in saying it. You can read more about that in the policies WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability, and WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.

In addition, the community also has policies on WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:Meatpuppetry, guidelines on WP:Conflict of interest editing; and the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation if you are being paid to edit.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Response to your comment

Hi, myself and Prasanth Tata are part of same team, the article that was created with Prasanth's ID was archived and we couldnt find its status on wiki as it was created may months ago. So, I have created fresh one correcting all the mistakes based on previous article. I request you to consider my latest article because we have updated recent references and citations. Here is the proof that we both are from same project. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt37919259/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cst_sm , Cast and crew sessions show that Prasanth and myself are from same team. Kindly suggest if anything missing from our end 49.204.5.62 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi anonymous IP editor, you have forgotten to log in and have not provided a link to your draft article so I am unable to provide advice. However, the situation you are describing is a conflict of interest and the citations you provided are insufficient (see WP:IMDB) and do not verify what you claim in your message. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Found ya. After some sleuthing, I've determined what this is supposed to be in response to and I've merged this new thread with the relevant messages above. In the future, there is no need to start multiple threads. However, if this is all there is, my previous advise still stands: there is no article to be had on this topic at this time. Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

welp

My page John Thomson (North Dakota) a page that you recently declined has moved on to another AFC where it was allowed only because I used Andy Jiang’s video https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TMrYsNKOOjg. Millard2ijhh (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Just tell me if you think it’s better. Millard2ijhh (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Millard2ijhh it's since been deleted so I cannot see the article content. However, with regard to the above given reference, a single YouTube Short does not meet the threshold of significant coverage nor, as user-generated content, is it considered reliable. YouTube content may only be used it if is from the channel of a recognized media institution or traditional publication that is otherwise considered reliable (e.g.: the YouTube channel of The New York Times; or the same for FOX News for most topics).

For any article you wish to write, you need to demonstrate that the subject is notable (and therefore has a credible claim of significance), such that the subject or topic of the article has been the subject of non-trivial and significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject, published by reliable sources, that are secondary in nature and add independent analysis or discussion of the subject.

Hope that helps. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Ty Millard2ijhh (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for clarification

 Courtesy link: User:Kamaleshrkamal/sandbox

Hello @Bobby Cohn, thank you for reviewing this draft and for your feedback. Before I make improvements, could you please clarify a couple of points so I can align the draft correctly?

1. What kind of additional reliable independent sources would you consider acceptable to establish notability for this topic? 2. Would sources like The Economic Times, Business Standard, Inc42, or The Hindu BusinessLine be acceptable as secondary references? 3. I plan to remove any promotional tone and rely only on neutral, third-party citations. Is there any specific section you recommend prioritizing first?

I appreciate your guidance and I’m happy to follow Wikipedia policies carefully. Thank you. Kamaleshrkamal (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Kamaleshrkamal, the sections § Corporate structure, § Target industries, § Industry classifications are entirely void of references. All of your sources to Business APAC are not reliable and are either WP:Interviews or suffer from WP:CHURN shortcomings. As far as why it reads like an advertisement, it is because it tells us what the company would have us say on the corporate website, instead of reporting on what significant coverage addressing the subject of the article from independent, reliable, and secondary sources have already said about the subject. I would entirely cut multiple promotional sections, bringing the article to WP:STUB form and instead focus on building the article out on the above advice. There is not much in the article in its current form I would consider worth keeping. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Abiola Aderibigbe

@Bobby Cohn thank you so much for your feed back re excessive citations on the Abiola Aderibigbe article.

I have conducted another sweep and further remove citations that may be deemed excessive, I would be extremely grateful if you could take another look to see if it now looks right.

thank you so much for your time BBenebo (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @BBenebo, looks like an improvement already. I'll note instances of citation strings 11–13; and 1, 19–20 in the section § Career. If there is more information that can be said from those citations, then best practice is to write about it—otherwise, it is best to cut the extra citations. Once a fact is verified by a WP:RS, it is sufficiently cited in accordance with WP:V. Two citations are good for controversial facts or for supplementing a less-than-reliable source. Three is gilding the lily and begins to introduce concerns of WP:NOTEBOMBing. Sometimes less is more. Hope that helps. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn Its a massive help! I am always keen to learn from more experienced editors. Thank you so much for taking the time to look again, I am grateful. BBenebo (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@BBenebo, I am more than happy to help. You are discovering that acceptance through AfC is not the end of the road, and that is good. Articles are inherently works in progress and by their nature can never be complete. But as editors we'll continue to try and improve them. Great work on adapting, it seems you are eager to improve the quality of the work and understand the reason for processes on this (sometimes convoluted) project. I look forward to coming across more of your writing in the future! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I was going to send it to draft

AfD is more appropriate. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Alas—I don't relish it, but sometimes a necessary part of the project. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)