User talk:Jcc/Archive 4

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

PMS Prasad

Hey Jcc! Hope you're doing fine. Just wanted to know why you yourself reverted the speedy deletion of this page? It clearly does not satisfy WP:GNG. So, wanted to run through you before I take an action. Best, Mr. Nair Talk 08:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: Hi there. I think I actually ended up reverting my own speedy deletion nomination rather than someone else's tag. A7 only applies, as far as I'm aware, to subjects where there is no credible claim of significance, which is not the same thing as notability, and so I quickly reverted my speedy deletion tag after realising the article had such a claim. If you want, I suppose you could PROD it or take it to AfD? Thank for you for letting me know. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Let me check. Best, Mr. Nair Talk 06:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:44:12, 28 July 2016 review of submission by Dathanasiadis


Thanks for reviewing the Draft:Megaventory page.

You indicate that the draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Can you please indicate the points in the text which are not supported or are supported by unreliable sources? We have gone through the usual documentation (see 3 links below) and cannot identify where the issues you mention are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REFB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

It is even more difficult to improve upon the draft since the last reviewer has not identified any issues with regards to reliability of sources. Please provide any specific indication you can so we can act upon it.

Of course. I'll provide a specific rundown. Bear in mind that sources need to be reliable- and to prove notability provide significant coverage of the topic.
  1. only provides a passing mention, but the source itself is reliable: "For Megaventory, a mini ERP Software-as-a-Service solution aimed at small and medium businesses, this has actually turned into a positive effect. SMEs are continuously looking for more cost-effective and efficient solutions and their solution fits exactly that requirement."
  2. even more of a passing mention- it doesn't even say what Megaventory is- "Those such as Megaventory, which was essentially developed out of a Greek island"
  3. great source
  4. passing mention in a list
  5. a review of the product- good.
  6. unreliable and it's just a download site for the product. get rid of it.
  7. I've never heard of Zapier before, but it looks a bit like IFTTT, which is by no means a reliable source!
  8. unreliable, get rid of it
  9. good at proving a specific claim
  10. good enough
  11. good, but this is a review site that has seemingly reviewed just about everything, so it doesn't really prove notability
  12. same website as 6, get rid of it
  13. get rid of it, just a categorisation site for downloads
  14. press release copied onto a download site
  15. press release, doesn't prove notability
  16. bit odd to cite this landing page as a source, I think you meant to cite this, which proves a specific claim, but not notability.
jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jcc. You have new messages at Jcc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your detailed reply. I've followed your suggestions and have culled most of the sources and their associated mentions - I've only kept a couple which are connected with a degree of achievement (for example, integrating with a major multinational ISP such as COSMOTE or with NEC's cloud program isn't 'universal truth' notable but still worth mentioning). I think the end result is much leaner and considerably more appropriate for publication.

Dathanasiadis (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted- well done for sticking with it. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hitachi Newton ..

ok no problem. As long as the IEP article retains a reasonable subsection - that relates to the IEP.

I'm not sure if the factory was actually an 'official' aspect of IEP, though it clearly was a necessity in terms of bidding/political acceptability.

I think the factory has obtained orders for some ScotRail trains as well - which may be relavent to the factory article (but not to IEP)

[1] most of ScotRail 385s to be buit at Newton Aycliffe
[2] AT300 for TPE
[[3] joint bid with Bombardier for TFL (not decided)
best wishes 83.100.174.82 (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I added the first two sources, but given that the tender for NTfL won't be awarded until autumn 2017 at the earliest, I'll leave that to someone else to decide whether they want to put that in. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my additions to the article on Candy Stripers

I was in that first group of Candy Stripers...my source is me I'm sure there are sources at the VLD Junior High School where it all began. It was a Social Studies class actually, rather then a civics class. The nurses were gone from the hospital to join the war effort so we and the Gray Ladies filled in as best we could. My phone 609-933-0041. I have just had my 85th birthday 8/11. And was reviewing my life when we looked up the Candy Stripers. I have a few stories about my time at the hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.113.181 (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Happy Perez help

Hi!

I saw you declined the draft for Happy Perez again, but I really thought the criteria were met now, as I've also added a citation to a feature article written in the Houston Chronicle specifically about him. In the notability pages for musicians, and specifically composers/producers/songwriters, it says notability is proven if the person was involved in records which played nationwide on radio, won major awards, or achieved major sales criteria. He has been involved with top charting radio records, multiple Grammy winning artists, as well as having won a Grammy himself, and has multiple platinum selling records he produced. Could you please let me know what else could be added here, as I really think he qualifies at this point?

thanks, and appreciate the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seif.hussain (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seif.hussain: You need to read through the comments made by the other reviewers, and actually act on them, as opposed to just resubmitting. I can't see evidence of you taking the feedback on board. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought the feature article (citation #1) I recently added was meeting the criteria they asked for in those comments, as it's a major publication (Houston Chronicle), and the article is written about Happy Perez. Can you please give me an example of what I might do to meet the notability they are requesting? I had previously chatted with an editor who said something like the article I added would suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seif.hussain (talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston Chronicle reference is great; but more like that are needed, and I can't find any. If you do, resubmit it, and let another editor take a look. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:American Vision Windows

Hey, I value your constructive criticism and I really want to know how to reshape this article. I personally do not understand how the article reads like an advertisement. I have covered all areas of the topic that are available on the internet as well as scholar journals and have tried to not use words that would be considered puffery. My intentions are not to advertise, but to be a genuinely well rounded editor of well done material. I've gone through the rules of Wikipedia and I want to make a neutral reading article and I don't understand what I'm doing wrong that would make this article considered "advertising". I'm going through my article right now trying to rewrite things that would make it seem puffy but all I'm coming back with is facts from the sources that were presented, which I have put in effort to show all sides of my available sources on the subject. The inflation and deflation of the company's revenue is not promotional and neither is the talk of previous unsuccessful divisions. But rather, I am absolutely willing to make the edits necessary to make this a legitimate article. Thank you, your efforts are appreciated. SWAloha (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SWAloha: Thank you for bearing with me whilst I obtained a copy of the original, deleted article. I'll run through it section by section for you:
  1. "The company's founders are Christians and ground the company's culture in their religious values. The company markets itself through radio, social media, and print ads, some of which is faith-based."- an example of promotional language. "Founded in 1999 by husband and wife William "Bill" Herren and Kathleen Herren, the company specializes in window installation and replacement, although it has expanded into other home improvement markets."- "founded in 1999" will suffice. "These sites house the company's warehouse showrooms which advertise the company's products", almost seems like an advert for the locations, similarly, too promotional. I think something along the line of "American Vision Windows, Inc. (AVW) is a home improvement company based in Simi Valley, California, founded in 1999. The company specializes in window installation and replacement, although it has expanded into other home improvement markets. American Vision Windows has opened locations in California and Arizona." is perfectly sufficient as a lead, with information about other divisions that were closed in the history section, talking about which...
  2. Your history section is too long. It reads like something that should be on a company website as opposed to on Wikipedia- it isn't objective enough (although, that being said, it is an improvement from your original draft). Being featured on Extreme Makeover: Home Edition is relevant, but we don't need to know about their "grand" opening ceremony, and we don't need the random quotes from Bill Herren (this applies throughout the article as well). We also don't need to know every single time the company opens a new office- perhaps just the notable big ones, like when the company expanded 30%.
  3. "Company culture and analysis" I find to be completely unnecessary, the note in history about Christian principles would be enough.
  4. Advertising- get rid of it
  5. I'm not sure about including the company's financial information within the article- it seems a bit like puffery to me, especially when you've already got a complementary awards section above it.

Just some quick thoughts. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay absolutely, I can see you on these levels. I'm going to give this article a pruning and bring it back down to its bare sources - as needed. SWAloha (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now I must discuss, I have done a major reshaping of the article. The company culture has been covered in numerous reliable sources, as well as one good source for the radio marketing - perhaps that is more evident as I have brought those sources down to their essentials. I have condensed it down to a simple "Corporate affairs and culture" section which minimizes the overall point of my sources. I took the financial information out of its wikitables and made it a paragraph. The history section has been cut down by your suggestions. I'd be really glad to hear your words of advice. SWAloha (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SWAloha: I've resubmitted it so another reviewer can take a look, and I've also left a note noting that you've removed the promotional language. I think that it should be passed. jcc (tea and biscuits) 06:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. :) SWAloha (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I quite understand why my work could still be seen as advertisement, but I guess I'll keep working to change it. Would you have any suggestions? I appreciate your help. SWAloha (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:42:23, 20 August 2016 review of submission by Nexus65

Hello. The quote you referenced in the article "are there any reliable sources, for example, proving the claim "Ross Reels is known as one of the world’s foremost reel manufacturing companies", or is that just PR waffle? jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC) is direct reference from the source. This quote, made independently from the editors at Angling International, are one the fly-fishing industries foremost authority figures.

@Nexus65: Thank you for citing that. I see that you've submitted it for re-review; I'll let another editor look at it, but I think it might just be notable enough to pass AfC in terms of news coverage, from a brief search for reliable sources online. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archived

Thank you for the message on my talk, to which I responded, but then archived soon. I was once called to ANI, but the thing dismissed with the question: if those allegedly hurt don't complain, why do you? - Life is so short, - why go after people who create quality content and watch over the quality. - I am supposed to a leader of the infoboxes militia, DYK? I try to stay away from the topic because it only takes time, - no arguments will convince the other side, we can just take it easy and with a grain of humour. Imagine me going to refute every single "no"-argument for Coward ;) - well, all these refutations have been done in 2013 already, DYK? - TRM: I watch the Main page, every day. What he does is amazing, and nobody else would do it. Of the many days this year, he called me for better sourcing only twice, and civilly so. I understand rising anger when offenses are more frequent, - at least up to a certain point. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps: about getting angry, I just wrote Straf mich nicht in deinem Zorn, - don't punish me in your anger ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I don't know how to respond to this. You seem to be attempting to appease me and he who must not be named simultaneously. I'm not sure you care about my response, but I did see your response; as well as your comment on he who must not be named's talk page. Anyhow, I've got a cool story to tell, and it'd be great if you read it.
Why should we go after those who create quality content? Simple- even though they create quality content, that cannot be used as a justification to allow their bullying behaviour. As said, I've got a story to tell you (I like stories, and hopefully you do too!). I remember quite distinctly, and I'm sure you do, the case of Technical 13. He went on personal attacks (sound familiar?), and even outed someone. But admins let him continue- why? Because he was a wikicode genius. His programming and template coding ability was amazing. Of course, he got blocked a few times (sound familiar?). He got warned countless times (again, sound familiar?). In the end, someone filed an ANI thread against him. There, everyone flocked to his defense- the "most productive and active template editor", I quote. And he got away (sound familiar?). But this editor was persistent. In PhantomTech's own words, "though this would restrict or completely prevent any further "good work" done by Technical 13, the fact is, his poor behavior burdens the community and takes away time that others could devote to do their own "good work"." So he took it to ArbCom. And guess who got indef blocked? Technical 13.
I'm not saying that I'm going to take it to ArbCom; I'm not sure the template community are bound together as well as the infobox people who are practically united. But someone is going to soon; it might be me some point in the future, it might be someone else he antagonises. But I do feel that if ArbCom saw through the "the "editor X is too valuable, it doesn't matter what else they do" argument that time, they will do again. Best wishes, Gerda, in your future endeavours. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ps: regarding TRM, I judged on the evidence given, so I suppose you could say I'm unbiased- but I'm also definitely not arbcom, and 100 different people could have 100 different takes on the same evidence. And by the way, quite funny actually, how badly George Ho's canvassing boomeranged!
Thank you, I like stories. This is a sad one. I hinted (in my reply) at my sad story of an admin who protected an article because of an editwar over the hidden notice, but was not uninvolved, was desysoped and blocked himself. No repair possible - he is dead. Life is too short. - I observed that arbcom is not necessarily driven by evidence, nor - as we just saw again - is ANI. - I wonder who could eventually close the Coward RfC because all people seem to be involved ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

05:47:40, 24 August 2016 review of submission by 203.122.33.125


Hi Jcc, This is Dr. Dabby. I'd written and submitted the MKU (Indian Defense Company) article for review.

First, thanks for the review - though getting declined does hurt a little, especially when you do put in efforts to get as good links as top national dailies like Business Standard, Economic Times, and TimesOfIndia and Bloomberg.com.

I tried to write this article in a neutral tone - and now i'm giving it a second check.

I think it'd be great if you could provide me specifics that need re-work.

This will help me speed up the work and re-submit the article.

Hoping for a quick response!

Best regards, 203.122.33.125 (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@203.122.33.125: Hi there, your draft was not declined due to notability but rather because it was too promotional in tone. I've removed the promotional language myself. Several of your inline citations don't actually prove the claims in the "history" section and appear to be random references- the dates claimed in the Wikipedia article are not even in the cited article! Furthermore. I've blanked a whole section (infrastructure) because it appeared to be copy and pasted from another source. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. It is now in article space. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worcester Park House

You relisted this item as requiring a clearer consensus, but this is unusual use of relisting. The consensus appears to be clear and solidly formed and was prior to your relisting. So please may I ask your rationale for relisting the discussion? Fiddle Faddle 14:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: A bit odd. I explicitly remember thinking that there was a consensus to keep, and I checked out the article, as I lived somewhat near Worcester-but-don't-pronounce-it-like-the-spelling Park, and didn't remember a house there. I even googled it and read a blog on it. Thanks for alerting me, clearly I've gone mad. Do as you wish or think appropriate. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm involved, so cannot do anything valid. May I suggest a self revert and a close to 'Keep'? Or is that impossible now a further editor has opined?
I used to play in the ruins as a kid! Life without oddities would be very bland Fiddle Faddle 15:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RELIST says it's fine to close a relisted discussion even if it's not been 7 days since the relist, so I'm closing it. Thanks for bringing it up. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
pinging @Timtrent: jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. If folk seriously want to delete it they can renominate it later. Itls not the best article we have, but it's by no means the worst. Fiddle Faddle 21:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Hawley

I made updates to Amos Hawley's page which you subsequently deleted. I will add them back and if you delete again I will report you. Think before you act. Camelpak478 (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for edits and welcome to Wikipedia! I reverted your edit as you added a section, "Personal life" to a biography of a person, without citing any sources at all. Please feel free to add the information again, citing reliable sources. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover granted

Hello, Jcc. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! ~ Rob13Talk 05:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jcc. You have new messages at Gkwfleming1974's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Islam Brunei Darussalam

Hello, Jcc. You have new messages at KhaasBanda's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rajasekharan Parameswaran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:51:59, 28 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Iano07976


I have added a Wiki Page for the person that founded the business which I hope will give him some credence.

Iano07976 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iano07976: That does not lend him any more credence, as notability is not passed onto the CEO. I have therefore nominated that new page for deletion. For the page on Arton Capital, simply do as I have commented on the AfC submission- and find third party, independent reliable sources (e.g. interviews given to media outlets, coverage in the media of this company). If you cannot find any, the subject is not notable enough to go on Wikipedia. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:46:06, 2 May 2017 review of submission by Ramfan101


Thank you for your feedback on the Frank Boyden (artist) article. I received them and have adjusted (or at least, have tried to adjust) the article accordingly. I wanted to make this post to both make note of the changes I have made (due to the fact that in spite of these changes, much of the article looks the same) and to ask for clarification on one piece of your feedback. I have removed the one instance of "peacock" language that I noticed (though if there were more, please tell me where else you saw them and I'll fix those as well). Additionally, my first draft cited the artist's personal resume; in this revision, I have located the same information in external/independent sources, so that I am no longer citing his resume. All of my references are now one of the following: newspaper/journal articles, biographies published by external sources, information directly from a museum's website, or another official organization's website. My question is in regards to your comment that you are unconvinced that listing a selection of the artist's exhibitions is necessary. In the research and article-writing that I have done until this point, it has been my understanding that listing an artist's awards, museum collections, a selection of their solo exhibitions, and a selection of their group exhibitions is simply the "proper way," so to speak, to format an artist's Wikipedia article. Is this not the case? Thank you for your help. Ramfan101 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramfan101: Please note that artists' biographies are by no means a specialist topic for me, so I shall defer to the superior knowledge of other editors who will undoubtedly know more about this subject than I do. I've just had a look 10 artists biographies listed as good articles to confirm my thoughts, and how many exhibitions they list (note: list, not written in prose. There is, of course, no "limit" to the number of exhibitions one can talk about in prose form) appear to be proportional to the article length: in the draft's case over half the article is taken up as a list. From what I can see, and per Wikipedia's policies on lists and more important, the guideline on summary style suggests that I am not being unreasonable when it comes to trimming down the list of collections; I notice that the good articles, Kate Millett and Maggie Laubser also have a list of just major collections, or "some" collections. Also worth noticing is that Kate Millett is an article with much more prose than yours, and Maggie Laubser is one of equivalent length, so perhaps it is worth bearing that in mind. Alternative ways that they have used to cut down on the proportional of article spent as a list has been to write it as prose, or list collections in museums with a Wikipedia article or finally via an external link or a separate Wikipedia article just listing works (the former is probably more appropriate at this point until the article is developed further). Thanks for asking, but again other people may know better than I do. PS: with a note to your references- are you aware you can reuse citations and not need a new reference number every time you use the same source? I have no further issues with the tone of the article, the prose reads great. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Robert Mills

Hello, Jcc. You have new messages at Moonbouncer54's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please note that full permission has been granted to use the text on the page: http://cayley.co.uk/john-robert-mills/ The text below has been added to the web page "Copyright Permission for Wikipedia The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In particular, CCC Trading Ltd gives permission for the use of text contained on this page to be used by Moonbouncer54 on the Wikipedia page relating to John Robert Mills. For verification please contact the site owner of CCC Trading Ltd (T/a Cayley Chemicals), Philip Mills by email: cayley@btinternet.com" Therefore please remove the tag for deletion Thank you Moonbouncer54 (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonbouncer54: I'm sorry, but I can't see a tag for deletion on that article- but even if the website content is under CC-BY-SA you still need to attribute it on the talk page. Talk page messages should also go at the bottom of the page.jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jcc. Could you advise on how "CC-BY-SA 3.0 for every, full stop" can be achieved please Moonbouncer54 (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I seem to have missed out a word- "CC-BY-SA 3.0 for every page". All you would need to change is the title on the website from "Copyright Permission for Wikipedia" to "Copyright", and add a note stating it overrides the footer. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Has been done. and thanks for help. Do you consider that the copyright rules are now met and I could re-submit? Moonbouncer54 (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Collazo JPG

Hi Jcc! I noticed that you have nominated the pic that I got from Mr. Collazo to be deleted and are advocating that I be blocked. This is very distressing to me since I believe that I had followed your advice during my subject research. That is currently the only pic that I have and I would like your advise and support to keep it since it is relevant to the bio work that I did for this article. I have followed up as well with recent information as you suggested to keep it fresh.

I have appreciated your help on this and still do. As you may recall I have been specializing in researching interesting figures that are in the public/private space and I am not a pro but do try to get real research, references, citations as you suggested. My health issues permitting, I try to make it better. Please advise and thank you.TimeMist (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry about that, it was written in exasperation. At the moment, you've uploaded the same image 4 times- every time it's been deleted, and you've been told to go through the correct processes for submitting someone else's image, but you insist on resubmitting it every time, to be deleted again. It would not surprise me if you got blocked on Commons. I asked you, back in January to go through the OTRS process, but it appears that you haven't. The good news is that the process is even easier now than in January- what you need to "write" in the email to OTRS is automatically generated for you if you click here- but you need to do this otherwise you will probably be on your "final warning" at Commons. Also, I read through the Carlos Collazo article and my thoughts are that it would not survive if another editor were to nominate it for deletion. Here's my thoughts:
  1. The external links inside the article have to go as they are very spammy.
  2. The sections need to be renamed- titles like "Technology Inventions and Innovation" are inappropriate.
  3. Every one of the long lists needs to go- e.g. "cyber security, server and network systems optimization management, digital media distribution, networked and distributed data base systems..." and the list of all the companies, advisory boards etc.
I've got a quick version that I think would stand a better chance of avoiding being deleted here- I've stripped loads of the article and some bits will need rephrasing and adding back in (for example, I'm clueless about the phrase "the analytical correlation of innovation and inter-operable frameworks used in combination with cyber intelligence to guide strategic business and organizational decisions"), but let me know what you think, and sorry again about the brusqueness of my message at Commons- but get filing that online form ASAP! jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jcc! I understand and I thank you for the great help. I think there was some confusion regarding the JPG. At first, I had a different one uploaded with the same name that I deleted (after a couple of bumbling steps on my part). Then I received a copy of the jpg that is there now and uploaded twice (again, still trying to get it right). I emailed Mr. Collazo and he has sent in an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the release for the jpg in the article now.

I do understand the 'spammy' list concerns and I appreciate it. I am most certainly not wanting to present an advert for the subject. As a matter of fact it took me some time and effort to get cooperation since the subject is 'publicity adverse'. I find it fascinating that individuals such this subject have had significant impact in the world and with some research it can be brought to light for all to appreciate. This subject has many business, educational and charitable accomplishments that affect us all in our everyday lives directly and indirectly. I would like to bring those facts to the narrative but how do I introduce the facts without out being 'spammy'? While I do not understand all the technology jargon nor what many of the companies the subject created, who do I mention these facts without it being inappropriate? I have tried looking at other biographies and they have similar sections to the ones I used. How do I do similar appropriately? You are being so helpful to me and I really appreciate the time and mentoring along with the sample in your sandbox. I hope that I am not being a burden. TimeMist (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Trespidi

Hi, you recently rejected my submission, I have worked very hard with other wiki editors and even today made necessary changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stefano_Trespidi

Please would you mind helping me to get this passed.

It would mean so much if I could get it published by Christmas.

You have no idea how much:)

Please also feel free to make any changes.

Let me know what else can be done.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraliguori (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have resubmitted the draft so another reviewer can look at it. Sign your talk page comments, and post at the bottom of user talk pages. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hello Jcc: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Jcc/Archive_4"