User talk:Bobby Cohn

Click here to start a new discussion.

Satya Prakash Sangwan

Hi Bobby, I have tried to improve my article on the Satya Prakash Sangwan, putting secondary sources with page references. Would it be possible for you to have a look at it again? Thanks. (Regards Pankaj) Pankajattri02 (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pankajattri02, I can see you've added references but these are hidden within the closed <reference> tags. As a biography of a living person, you need inline citations. The writing in the article needs citations to demonstrate where the facts in any particular spot in the article come from, so that someone reading it could go and look for themselves at the source material you used to write the draft. Again, have a look at the instructions at WP:REFB, I specifically use WP:INTREF3 when I do my writing.

Hope that helps, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Pankajattri02 (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Request on 00:58:36, 23 December 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by Rexracer11

• Rexracer11 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mark Jennings-Bates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for the comments. I will be honest Bobby, I am not the right person to do this. I find the comments extremely subjective, 3 reviewers and 3 completely different declines with no adjudication. It appears a very subjective and proscriptive environment. I am not into wasting my time when my intent was to add value. I do thank you for your comments an perhaps they were the correct ones, but I do not want to waste my time or your.

Rexracer11 (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Rexracer11, I'm very sorry to hear your Wikipedia experience thus far has been disappointing and I understand, our policies and procedures are oftentimes overly bureaucratic and unapproachable. I also apologize that--in my opinion--you weren't given the best advice upfront and made it seem like you were getting the run around. I have raised my concerns with the other reviewer and all I can say is that we're volunteers and sometimes we get things wrong; present company included, I'm certainly far from infallible myself.

I understand your desire to step away. Wikipedia will keep your draft available for 6 months. After that, it may get routinely deleted but you can always ask that it get returned to you if you want to come back to working on it even after that 6-month timeline. For what it's worth, I do not think it is inherently a bad draft, rather the last issue is the threshold of notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. This is not an issue with your writing, rather an inherit property of the subject (or rather, the published media about him). If you are able to find three sources about him that are independent, reliable, and non-trivial (i.e.: they contain significant coverage) then I would easily be able to accept the draft (even in its present state, as I said, notability is about the subject and independent of the writing). If you find those sources now or anytime in the future, please do let me know.

As far as your concerns about wasting my time, please do not worry. If I didn't enjoy this, I wouldn't spend my time doing it. I enjoy the ability to accept drafts and help add to the ever expanding library of easily approachable knowledge. That's why I tried to be as helpful as I could in giving my guidance in the original comment I made. If it provided any knowledge or information of any value whatsoever to yourself or another passerby, then no time was wasted.

I wish you all the best, and I do hope you return someday. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Bobby, I do understand your point and I am certainly not pointing a finger at anyone. The system is difficult for brain to fit into perhaps so I may in fact be the misfit. Your guidance was fair and clear and thank you for doing what you do as a volunteer. Seasons greetings. Rexracer11 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Corrected As Per Guidelines

Please, Accept this article, I Edited as per guidelines and cited reference from Wikipedia and other two important links too MusicMacho (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@MusicMacho you cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. The IMDb citation persists, despite previous instruction to the contrary. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Confused about comments on draft article: AI Tools for Wholesale Sourcing on B2B Sites

Hi Bobby! Thank you for taking the time to review my article. I am a little lost in regards to the same comment about how it is reading like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. I took out all promotional and subjective phrases making sure that every single sentence was attributed to appropriate secondary sources. I am not sure why I am still getting the same comments about it reading like an essay?

I have read other Wikipedia articles and find that this reads just like them, so if you could kindly clarify what do you mean when you say it sounds like an essay?

If there are any unreliable secondary sources, please flag. I saw your comment about one source that needs editing and I can fix that. There are no opinions in the article, I am not sure what that is referring to? Every single sentence is attributed to a secondary source with extensive attention paid to wordings to avoid any promotional, or non-neutral langauge.

I have not used any LLM's to write the article, if anything if it sounds like its written by an LLM its because I had to edit it extensively to take out any language that Wikipedia would deem not neutral, so if there is vaugeness it is because I am trying to follow your neutrality standard. What can I do to improve the article according to Wikipedia standards? Writingflows321 (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Writingflows321, I think in part because of the subject matter you're attempting to write about and the limited nature of sourcing in this area or on this topic (it is such an already narrowed premise: we have articles on websites, for the B2B sector, on wholesaling, and artificial intelligence). As a result, you've had to write a bit of a "coatrack" article where you're having to stitch things together that are somewhat related because of the sheer number of nouns in your article title, but don't coalesce around a singular subject. That's your sourcing.

Then your writing, it feels as though you are trying to prove a point. Multiple times you use examples or instances to prove a point (and this ventures dangerously close to original research, see in particular WP:SYNTH), where instead on Wikipedia, all we want to do is summarize things that have already been said about the topic. Our only job is to write in summary style about that instead of trying to convince our readers. That is where your article struggles, is it is really trying to convince me of something instead of just presenting it.

To my first point, it is entirely possible the subject you have chosen to write about might not be notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. That is, we would want to see significant coverage from independent sources that discuss the actual subject of the article (in this instance, the very specific subsection of AI tools, wholesale, B2B, and websites).

Hope that helps, feel free to let me know if you have another question. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Bobby! I think its more clear now. I think the topic might not be suitable as it is not notable enough. I understand what you are saying about how we just want to summarize stuff, that is actually a great description for new wikipedia writers who may not understand what original research means. Thanks, this was very helpful. Writingflows321 (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Follow up question: If I want to know if a topic would be notable enough according to Wikipedia standards can I run it by you before I start working on it, or is there anyway to run a topic by the editors via talk page. A lot of time is wasted when we work on a long article only to find its not notable enough. Writingflows321 (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Writingflows321. Not a problem, but I don't want you to feel like your writing has gone to waste. You could always add a selection to an existing article, consider a new subsection under Applications of artificial intelligence § Internet and e-commerce. Just make sure to abide by the other guidelines (WP:SYNTH, WP:OR) if you still feel there is something to be said about it.

As for writing, of course. It is a bit difficult to exactly know as editors disagree all the time on what qualifies or not (peruse WP:AFD to see ongoing discussions). In general, the rule of thumb is three sources that meet all WP:SIRS:

1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

If you have three sources that check each of those boxes, it's safe to say you'll be good to move on to the next step, writing. This will get easier to identify as time goes on and you spend more time on Wikipedia (often times you see editors say that writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do as a new editor). But if you feel like you want to run a topic by me I would be more than happy to give my initial thoughts.

Happy new year! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Bobby! That's great that I may be able to use some of the content to enhance an existing article. I will review it and make any changes that may be required before attempting to do that. Thanks for the three rules; these are very helpful. Writingflows321 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)