Bobby Cohn

Click here to leave me a new message.

Talk:Artms

Hi Bobby Cohn -- I wanted to mention that I may be opening a move review over the recently-closed discussion at Talk:Artms. While by pure !votes (8 support, 5 to five) there is arguably only a slight, there were no policy-based arguments raised to rebut the main question in play in the manual of style's direction around reflecting usage in sources -- arguments instead consisted solely of personal stances on why sources should not count or were otherwise inconsistent with the cited policies. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Yaksar: can't say I'm surprised by this message. I would disagree with your assessment of the overall arguments presented, but otherwise you are welcome to open the MR. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course you're not surprised. It's the same flawed logic as the logic to close ESTOILE NAIANT, which also generate false consensus to opposed based on flawed arguments brought by a single editor. So why close it with flawed rationale? 122141510 (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what I've done to be the recipient of your ire: twice now after leaving messages on my talk page you've immediately gone to your user page to add addendums to your diatribe and call me and other editors here "incompetent" and "cognitively impaired to a medically diagnosable degree". You suggest that simply for closing a move discussion as "no consensus" that we "be rewarded with time in a penal colony, as it's also served to enable historical revisionism and as mentioned earlier, genocide denial." [1] Can't say I'm sure of the best way to respond to this kind of message.

Specifically, on your user page, you asked "So why not be able to explain the rationale for rejecting the move request by speaking to policy?" No such question was ever asked. And reviewers of my talk page will note that I am no stranger to re-opening and relisting RMs in light of convincing arguments. I said I was not surprised because, as was even noted by a commentator to the discussion, that the temperature in the RM was becoming a little heated and both sides had begun to talk past each other. So therefore when an editor left a note simply stating their intention to raise it at MR, a notice left on my page without a question to affirmatively respond to, I simply chose to point out what part of their assessment I disagreed with, but otherwise plainly acknowledged receipt of their message in a cordial way.

You again raise your concern with the Estoile Naiant conversation so I'll note I treated your discussion above much in the same manner: I gave my rational when asked but otherwise let sleeping dogs lie.

To answer your question, the fact of the matter is that both those in favor of and opposing the move request presented numerous arguments; some stronger than others on both sides. You dismiss others' arguments out of hand as not being policy based but I disagree, policy was referred to on both sides of the argument, and in closing I can ensure you that I had multiple tabs open and checking where the arguments aligned with policy and where they may have been simply related but not directly controlling in the discussion. I do so because, as I pointed out to you above, I assess consensus (or lack thereof in this instance) by evaluating all arguments and not dismissing anything out of hand, but also evaluating where editors agree and disagree on those policies and conducting an overall balancing test based on those principles. My closing procedure has not varied since you asked previously, and it lead me to this result in this instance.

I myself am indifferent to the result, and I oppose your characterization that I (as if I alone even could) rejected your move request. All I did was close a discussion as having no consensus. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

So then what are the policy-based rationale that give the oppose side merits in these requests? You keep saying you're adhering to policy, but seem incapable of citing them. Then you play the same game a lot of editors do, hiding behind "no consensus" as if that's an acceptable rationale for anything.

"The title is wrong." / "Why is it wrong?" / "No consensus."

How does that make any sense? 122141510 (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, you participated in the RM and engaged with the different discussions yourself. I'm not going to summarize or give a timeline of the different arguments and participants. I am also not going to re-engage with those discussions with you, to do so would put me in the position of arguing for the oppose side because you don't see that other editors can have different opinions from yours and still be valid.

I'm also not arguing the title is wrong or policy is wrong—again, the policies that I am adhering to are the ones regarding closing discussions and determining consensus.

What I will tell you is that I evaluated:

• All the arguments around TM and TMRULES, and the different opinions and interpretations of those that supported and opposed the move;
• The extent to which COMMONNAME considers capitalization, and how editors thought it ought to apply here, as well as the guidance pages that offer advice on interpreting policy;
• The extent to which AT was the controlling policy, and the supporting pages such as TITLETM that offer interpretation;
• The concerns that editors had about the different sources provided, including—but not limited to—the origin language of the sources and the concerns that sources would be unfairly discounted because of language;
• Concerns editors had about capitalization and stylization as discussed in CAPS and ALLCAPS, and the meta-argument around that about what the threshold should be to meet the guidance of the main argument;
• The arguments about respecting biographical article's subjects as supported by IDENTITY and BIOEXCEPT;
• The arguments for and against treating the title as an acronym or an ABBR;
• The argument against the move because of consistency, and the rebuttals to that idea that capitalization stylization sometimes requires too much of a burden of overwhelming support sources, as well as the rebuttal that consistency is often over applied and the warnings in EMERSON;
• The accusations that capitalization would just be marketing and the meta-argument that who are we to decide which RS are independent or marketing machines for an industry as a whole;
• Even accusations that certain arguments did or did not apply to the discussion, and to a lesser extent, the idea that one side might be arguing ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT.

In considering and weighing the above, I found that:

• Both those arguing for and against the move presented stronger and weaker arguments, that
• Had no reason to be plainly discounted or ignored, such that
• Editors were not able to arrive at even a rough consensus, and
• Even following a previous realist, the conversation did not be appearing to go in the direction of one side garnering convincing support.

Again, I'm having a difficult time interpreting your question here—I don't think you're incapable of understanding what a no consensus closure is, and you participated actively in the discussion about the interpretations of the arguments so I know you know the other side presented those arguments. I would be happy to expand on any one or more of the points above if you'd like. Is there an argument that you think (1) I didn't properly consider or (2) ought to ignore on the oppose side? Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Mary Conway Kohler draft

Would you be able to review my draft of this article, and let me know of any improvements I can make. As you know, I've had difficulty publishing this draft previously so I'd like to get it right. Henrybardklein (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Henrybardklein, I don't typically do reviews upon request, but I am happy to conduct some simple copy editing. I'll let you know. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Henrybardklein there are a few outstanding sections and claims that are unsourced. I've tagged them as such. I've also conducted copy editing to bring the article closer inline with our WP:Manual of Style. The biggest thing remaining however, is you cite to "Ibid" multiple times in the article but I cannot find the full citation. Can you provide me with:

• the author's full name
• the full title
• the year
• the publisher
• any additional information you might have, such as location, ISBN, or edition.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for going over the Mary Conway Kohler article. Where can I find the version with your corrections? Henrybardklein (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Henrybardklein it has been published and can be found at Mary Conway Kohler. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Kappathorai

Cltr (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

👍 —Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Section renamed from "Thank you also for reviewing Singa, Arunachal Pradesh"

Cltr (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cltr: you are most welcome, but I don't need a thank you for everything. Your continued work is thanks enough! Keep up the good work on Wikipedia. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Name

Hey. Just wanted to say that I thoroughly approve of your username Bobby Cohn. Great name, great book! Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Paul Vaurie, thanks for your message here, I'm absolutely tickled that someone caught it and appreciates it as well! Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

:-)
I can't be the first person to point it out, can I? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: You are, though it is a recent change. It's one of my favourite books and the character is an interesting foil, so I thought it would be perfect for an online alias. So first to get the reference after a little over one month isn't terribly long. I'm impressed you got it, even with the change Robert → Bobby. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)