Jump to content

User talk:Bobby Cohn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request to Retrieve Sake Challenges Page

[edit]

Hello Bobby,

I hope you are well.

I would like to resume work on my Sake Challenges page, but I was not aware that the page had been deleted.

Would it be possible for you to retrieve the page for me?

I would really appreciate your help.

Best regards,

Waxilo Waxilo (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Waxilo, the deletion notice on your talk page lays out the steps, it's minor and procedural, just follow the instructions for undeletion here. I myself don't have the requisite account permissions, but an administrator should answer your request shortly. Hope that helps, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy deletion nomination of User:InformationNerd...LoveLearning/sandbox

[edit]

Hello Bobby Cohn. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of User:InformationNerd...LoveLearning/sandbox as an excessively unrelated non-draft subpage under CSD U7. That criterion did not apply because the page was created less than 6 months ago. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: Ahh, I'm now seeing "and" prefacing the list of (presumably) "or" items. I will review both U7 and elementary BEDMAS operations. Thanks. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The move from “Miguel Antonio de Arrascaeta” to “Miguel Antonio” should be reverted.

[edit]

de Arrascaeta” is not an optional descriptor, a location, or a disambiguator, but the family surname by which this historical figure is identified in Spanish-language sources and historical documentation. Removing it substantially alters the subject’s identity and creates ambiguity, since “Miguel Antonio” alone is not a distinctive or recognizable name.

This would be comparable to renaming “José de San Martín” as simply “José”, which would clearly be inappropriate and contrary to common naming conventions for historical figures from the Spanish-speaking world.

According to Wikipedia’s naming conventions, article titles should use the name by which a person is most commonly known in reliable sources. In this case, the full name Miguel Antonio de Arrascaeta is consistently used in historical records and secondary sources, and the particle “de” is an integral part of the surname, not a removable element.

For these reasons, the original title “Miguel Antonio de Arrascaeta” should be restored. Rocomotsu (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Rocomotsu for your note here. I've already self reverted. I did this because I thought that was your request on the talk page: From Special:PermaLink/1332705491:

== Requested move – correcting article title ==

{{error|[[Template:Requested move]] is not for moves from draft or user space.<br>If you would like to submit your draft for review, add <code>{{tlf|subst:submit}}</code>to the top of the page.<br>Otherwise, see [[Help:How to move a page]] for instructions.<br>If you cannot move it yourself, see [[Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves|Requesting technical moves]].}}<!-- {{subst:requested move|Miguel Antonio de Arrascaeta|reason=Personal names are not translated; 'of Arrascaeta' is incorrect per English Wikipedia naming conventions. Translated article from Spanish Wikipedia and ready for mainspace.}} --> [[User:Rocomotsu|Rocomotsu]] ([[User talk:Rocomotsu|talk]]) 10:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies if I misunderstood. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rocomotsu, as the now-resident expert on this talk page, please review my most recent addition of the {{family name hatnote}} to ensure it's correct. It will be more clear than your message on the talk page and will help ensure this doesn't happen again.
P.S.: If you're using an LLM chatbot like ChatGPT, I'd prefer if you just used your own words. If you aren't, there's no need for random bolding; wikilinks to namespaces and shortcuts are better for supporting your position, and you can just quote the relevant and specific supporting parts as it pertains to your case, not the general guideline.
Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bobby,

[edit]

Thank you for being my first feedback. Your feedback is kindly appreciated on my first day of Wikipedia. I will always remember you as I continue my journey on Wikipedia! Salv0603 (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merely procedural, but more than happy to help nonetheless! Let me know if you have any questions and I can help further @Salv0603. Know that there may be a bit of a backlog having your draft article reviewed, there is presently a backlog of about 1,200 submissions and these are reviewed in random order.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

oops!

[edit]

We both played in the same pond at the same time. I suspect we are both correct, too. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.

As always, I greatly appreciate the ability the disagree but discuss in a healthy manner. I know that I'll always come away better off as a result of our having met. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea we were disagreeing! Are you certain we are? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not more than the threshold of a CSD tag and my use of "bigger issue" in a throwaway project space comment. It is also possible I was looking for an excuse to use a hoity-toity quote and a fancy template. I'll add it to the pile of cringe-inducing moments in the archives. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I like the quote. I must mosdef try to upstage your 'hoity' by at least a level three 'toity', but I may need to do it by stealth.
😈
Now, where did my halo go? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A quotation is a handy thing to have about, saving one the trouble of thinking for oneself, always a laborious business.

— A.A. Milne, If I May (1920)

😉. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just have to think of the right quotation! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, it was self-targeted depreciation. An ironic use of an ironic quote, if you will. I fear the edit summary may have been better suited for the comment itself. Regardless, the cringe has well arrived. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 
Seems appropriate 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To no one's surprise, it would appear your finely tuned senses were proven correct. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As were yours, over which there is no surprise either. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

rejected

[edit]

i would like to gave your notes on why I got rejected Lw2311 (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lw2311 what was the purpose of your submission? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I love writing to people. Lw2311 (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's great @Lw2311. But your submission appears to be a plaintext copy and paste of the article Los Angeles, a topic we've had on the encyclopedia since at least 2001. The Articles for creation process is for new articles on subjects that are not yet covered by Wikipedia. If you have productive changes and contributions for topics that already have articles, you may be bold and make those changes yourself to the existing article. This was explained when I declined (not rejected) your article. You can see where it says "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Los Angeles instead." Hope that helps. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you Lw2311 (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Lw2311: and then you just go ahead and resubmit that – would you care to explain your thinking? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your opinion, what should be done with this? Half the article isn’t really about the topic, the other half exudes self-promotion, a good chunk is about business figures and future plans, then an endless list of books and videos. — Biruitorul Talk 19:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]