Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

In the event that what you seek is not here then it is archived (0.9 probability). While you are welcome to potter through the archives the meaning of life is not there.

I feel like I've previously spun my tires on this (as you'll see from my list in the first response) but a new editor is, as far as I can tell, on the right path in writing a new article. I think the subject passes NPROF, or at least meets the ~50% threshold we are tasked with assessing. If you have the time, would you mind double checking the advice (and weighing in, if you can think of anything) on User talk:Bobby Cohn § Jack Rechcigl - new draft, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn As you know I have a track record of accepting borderline drafts, and allowing the community to decide. I think it's somewhat bloated but passes WP:NPROF - the elected fellowship is what I am hanging my hat on. Would you like me to accept it and have the monkey on my shoulders or would you prefer another (you?) does this? Obvs needs submitting on the editor's behalf first. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as proverbial monkeys go, I doubt this would be a very heavy one to have on my back. It's possible the me of six months ago was more heavy handed than I needed to be with the decline button, and I was wearing an NPP hat on when giving the advice. I think a lot of the bloat should be cut, but I also think there is some salvageable descriptive things in there that would be good to have in an article on the subject. This is the benefit of asking for a second opinion, like you say when doing AFC reviews, if we get it wrong, we adapt moving forward. In the grand scheme of things I wouldn't have an objection if you resubmitted on their behalf and approved it. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn  Done and tagged 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn At NPP it may yet be sent for deletion, but that is not truly an AFC concern. Our job is to consider the notional 50%

I never guarantee to be right, but I do guarantee to have an opinion. 😈 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think accepting and then tagging for clean up is a great path forward for this draft article, and Wikipedia is one article better for it.

I have no shortage of opinions of my own, my talk archives assure me of that. And there's a joke somewhere in here about an oft-quoted saying about opinions, but I shan't try and make in a text only medium. All I'll say is thanks for yours. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]