Jump to content

User talk:Jcc/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

From the other day...

... Didn't have time in the middle of my ^$(%*$ weekend to say so, but actually I first picked up on the whole reversions thing from your talkpage message to me. And I did mean it when I said thanks for stepping in, both trying to protect the information and giving me a clue what was going on. So thanks much.... almost tempted to drop a barnstar in thanks but thought a personal word might mean more. Best, LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 23:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
I think you truly deserve this, Jcc. I mean you're the one who refined my article on MKU and made it worthwhile to be on Wikipedia.

Though i have done a good number of edits on Wikipedia, I'm still a newbie. So, thank you very much for your support! And I'm gonna come back to you every time I find some difficulty with wikipedia:) Dr. Dabby (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Vision Windows

Thanks for helping out me out a lot. I can honestly say that if it wasn't for your constructive criticism, that I wouldn't be as good at making articles. The page I created is now up for deletion (again), despite it passing inclusion. I honestly don't understand how that is possible because I worked hard to get the article up to par. But it would be greatly appreciated if I could have your word on this. Once again thanks for the help. :) SWAloha (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@SWAloha: Thank you for the notification and sorry it took me so long to get round to replying; I've voted at the AfD. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your help. I notice most of your edits are on South Asian subjects which i find interesting as I'm reading some of these articles. Where are you from? SWAloha (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Just wanted to say a huge thanks for your kind words on WP:RFP/NPP and all your work so far. You deserve this! Enjoy. Class455 (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of British Rail Class 455

The article British Rail Class 455 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:British Rail Class 455 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For helping to promote British Rail Class 455 to GA Status. Thanks for all the effort you've put in and for this you receive a barnstar! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 07:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

British Rail Class 455

Congratulations, it's a...
...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher). Shearonink how did you get the drawing of the 455? That looks so good! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 07:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but all I did was I poke around Commons...A lot! Did a search for "British Rail Class 455". When I do a GA Review I always give the nominating editors a "Wikilove" that is personalized with an image related to the article I reviewed but that does not appear within that article. For instance, I reviewed Nearest-neighbor chain algorithm and placed File:Ambigram-8-eight-math-2-1-5-rotation-mirror-basile-morin.gif in the Wikilove message I gave that editor - because I couldn't find an algorithm on Commons and the File seemed to be the next-best thing. Shearonink (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious

"lets hope for a civil discussion"

Thank you for quality articles such as British Rail Class 455, for welcoming new users and warning others "for unconstructive editing", for dealing with articles for creation, for requesting comments to check if consensus changed, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Wow, thank you :) jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Many thanks for your work :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


Request on 14:59:28, 18 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Dsiout2017


Hi Jcc, I am attempting to publish the article for AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania. I am new to creating articles on wikipedia, so I may be approaching it incorrectly. AIDS Law Project is a nonprofit law firm that is notable within Pennsylvania and even nationally. I feel as though it deserves a wikipedia page. The one I edited was not promotional as it was written in factual form. Is there anyway to restore it or even to request help in editing it?

Thank you in advance


Dsiout2017 (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dsiout2017: I am able to see that you've just moved the page to mainspace yourself, (delibrately?) bypassing the AfC process. I do not recommend doing this and I'm not sure there is anything I can help you with. User:Jimfbleak has given you tons of advice at User_talk:Dsiout2017#Reply so I'd follow that. Please disclose any conflict of interest you have with the subject. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi jcc - I have responded to your question / help re Robert G. Darling on my talk page. I look froward to you continued help StillEvolving (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help with regard to Robert G. Darling Jcc - I will continue to improve this and other articles.StillEvolving (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Email

Received an alert one was sent from you, but nothing came through. Will check again in a little while.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Found it. Will do. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Padlet

Hiya there jcc! Just wanted to let you know I took your advice and submitted it to MfD. Alao thought this would be an excuse to say hi! So.. HI! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Drewmutt: Hi, it's great to see you around at AfC! I appreciate that you take your time to leave individualized comments- I was particularly impressed with the comment you left on the Padlet draft explaining CORPDEPTH, such that I added it to my list of premade AfC comments. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

question

I keep getting notices that my translations have been approved. This is new. Is there some setting I can change to take my articles out of the likely-enormous backlog? Or is this more hysteria about machine translations? I use software tools so some of my work had to be fished out of the X2 pile. Either way, although everything including my work can always be improved, this does not seem like a good use of my time or anyone else's, and I have mostly stopped doing translations because of it. I welcome any suggestions you may have. I am asking you in particular simply because I just got a notification from you about Ramparts of Senlis. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Just took a look at the page, actually, and see it still has at least one reference error and a format error too. I have today set aside for something else but will try to squeeze this in get those and any other low-hanging fruit later today. Translation still looks a little first-passish also. But I usually do finish my stuff, if not immediately, and so if possible, let me know about that question. Elinruby (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Elinruby: Drafts, in the draft namespace, older than 6 months are eligible for deletion under the G13 speedy deletion criteria. As far as I can see, Ramparts of Senlis hadn't been edited in 6 months so in theory it could have been deleted at any time. Another user spotted this and submitted it to be moved into mainspace to avoid the hard work and time you spent translating it being wasted. The best way to avoid this in the future is to create drafts in your own userspace rather than in the draft namespace. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
ie sandbox? It's pretty full. But alright, if that's your answer. I don't find it all that satisfactory, but this particular article did have some problems --apparently I got distracted halfway through -- so I am not really getting huffy, more like good catch. But I wondered why. So someone else did that as a way of rescuing it, you're saying? I see. The people working on G13 stuff might want to be aware that we translators are being told to use draft space to avoid losing work to X2. Just saying. Elinruby (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Elinruby: Your userspace is more than just your sandbox- you can create unlimited 'subpages' e.g. User:Elinruby/Cliff Dwellers (one you created six years ago) through the format User:Elinruby/your title here. The RfC which established anything in draft-space was eligible to be deleted after six months without edits is very recent, so it is possible that the advice you were given is now outdated. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah thamks -- need to visit that cliff-dwellers page, I had forgotten about it, and, apparently, the process that created it ;) Meanwhile, I am about to upload a cleaned-up Ramparts ;)

I'm submitting promising pages to AFC and some get approved for mainspace. That resulted in the approval message you received. If something useful gets deleted just request a WP:REFUND its easy. Thanks for your translation efforts. I know that is hard work. Legacypac (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thing is, I don't quite know where the page was. I am trying to be careful to say that so far I do not take issue with what you've done with that one article that was deleted as I think it was probably a good idea in that particular case, but I find the process alarming. I would have liked to look, personally. When the X2 criterion was put through the proponents were also saying most of them were junk. There were in fact some really bad articles, most of them by the same three editors, but most were anywhere from "great" to "barely readable and reflecting both flaws in early machine translation tools and in the other-language original." But many of these flaws, while they looked bad to english speakers, were quite easily fixed. Word order was a big one. Lack of references was another, and it was a problem in the original, usually. Elinruby (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your review of page on Dennis M. Kelleher

Very confused about your determination. The article contains 26 cited sources to say nothing of nearly 40 footnotes. Not sure how it can be better sources. But I am even more confused about the point that it is a glorified CV. Yes, a prior page for Dennis M. Kelleher had been up. But it was selected for deletion because someone asserting that Kelleher is not a "notable person." The page that I wrote clearly demonstrates that Kelleher is a person of note in the media, in policy circles, and on Capitol Hilll. Here too, if that fails to satisfy the definition of notable, I am at a loss. Moreover, the page shows that Kelleher was and is a "go to" voice on several topics that are on Wikipedia. In toher words, if he is sought after to comment on issues that rate a page on Wikipedia, shouldn't he rate a page of his own? Finally, Kelleher's page was on Wikipedia for several years until just recently. Surely if he was suitable to have a page for a long time, he should rate one still. Charnich (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charnich (talk • contribs) 17:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Charnich: Absolutely not. Firstly, disclose any conflict of interest you have with the subject. Secondly, notability is not, and never has been measured by the number of sources, it is about the availability of in depth third party sources on the subject. Additionally, it is incredibly disingenuous to suggest that your article was deleted because of 'someone asserting that...'. It was deleted after an in depth discussion in which a number of editors checked the sources and evaluated that the subject was not notable enough. I don't see how there can be any confusion as to the neutrality of the article; you have also not addressed the fact that entire sections are unsourced. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I never suggested that notability should be determined by the number of sources. Rather, I think the original article aptly demonstrates that Kelleher is a go to source in the media and a regularly consulted expert by the U.S. Congress and regulators on matters of public policy, specifically the financial system. I don't think I was being disingenuous at all, as the prior log on the article shows that a lack of notability was asserted as the reason for deletion. Indeed, I reached out to that person to discuss it and never received a reply. To that end, lacking any other viable option, I re-posted the page. As for the issue of neutrality, that's not the issue here. If neutrality were the issue then I submit that every page in support of an actor or actress cold be seen as nothing more than a vehicle to promote their respective careers.

Look, I don;t really want to argue about this. As I asserted, I think the article is heavily sourced, as the exhaustive list at the end of the piece provides substantiation for everything that is said. If that is the issue, what is the solution? Should I similarly footnote other sections of the article?

I'm really searching for a solution here. Charnich (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Charinch: You still haven't replied regarding COI. The claim that neutrality is unimportant is ludicrous. When moving articles out of drafts pace, our criteria is to move the draft if it would survive an AfD discussion. The fact that an extremely similar form of the article did not survive AfD and was deleted shows that it should not be moved out. I will not be moving the page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said, the AfD was because of notability, and given the standard of: "it is about the availability of in depth third party sources on the subject." I think I have more than fulfilled that standard. I never had the oppotunity to respond to the AfD as I mentioned before because the person who made the determination never responded to me after an ample amount of time. Finally, as to the COI, I don't know what you are talking about. If you could state precisely what the conflict is, I wold be pleased to address it. Charnich (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Charnich: You have only ever edited this article. Per my explanation above: "our criteria is to move the draft if it would survive an AfD discussion. The fact that an extremely similar form of the article did not survive AfD and was deleted shows that it should not be moved out", I will not be moving the page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess I am confused yet again. You cite the AfD issue, which I addressed repeatedly in my responses and tried to address with the person who made that determination but to no avail. This seems to me to be a critical issue -- it is, in my view, unfair to keep throwing that at me even though, while there was some discussion of the issue, I never really had a chance to be a part of that conversation. But before that you cited a lack of sources and proper citation. You also cited neutrality and conflict of interest. So which is it? Charnich (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Charnich: I have said all I have to say on this subject. I moved it because of multiple reasons, as I have explained ad nauseum above. Your next steps are deletion review if you think the AfD was flawed or to improve the article and submit to AFC where another editor can review the draft. I will not be responding further (unless you move the draft direct to mainspace again without improvement, where I'll formally nominate it for deletion, as I've had enough). jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

As you will note in my message from 21:11, 31 July 2017, I asked for your help and guidance in making the necessary changes to the page so it passed muster. Was the page sources? I made very clear that it was, in my view sources, but you never provided any guidance to a newbie Wikipedia user on how to remedy your concerns. Similarly, with your concerns about whehter it was a glorified CV or not, you offered no guidance to a newbie Wikipedia user of how to address that. I tried to address the AfD concern but you seemed to ignore that every time, and as I pointed out my effort to see that process through was ignored by the Wikipedia admin who made the final decision. Finally, you suggested that there was a conflict of interest, but when I asked for clarification on that issue you provided nothing to a newbie Wikipedia user. I simply have to say that as a newbie this has been a disappointing and frustrating experience as I would have hoped that a more experienced person such as yourself would have been more inclined to help me. Charnich (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not provided 'no guidance'. I moved the page to draft-space, clearly and explicitly laying out my concerns, and noting that I would help you address them and review any changes you made- I even took great pains to reply to your various questions above despite the fact I was on holiday at the time. It is worth noting that throughout this, whilst ready to throw arguments at me, you have not made any attempt to change the article. I have quoted the exact reason why am I not going to move the article multiple times, and shall do so again: "our criteria is to move the draft if it would survive an AfD discussion. The fact that an extremely similar form of the article did not survive AfD and was deleted shows that it should not be moved out". I have invited you to read the linked guides and my various tidbits of advice, improve the article and resubmit, but again, you have not done so. With regards to a conflict of interest, you have only ever edited this page, and you obtained the text of the previous, deleted, article despite, in your own words, 'the deleting admin not being responsive' and your contributions show no sign of you having asked another admin. The obvious conclusion is that you have a conflict of interest, i.e. working for them, being paid to write the article- how else could you have obtained the deleted text of the old article? jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Charnich - You still haven't answered the question of whether you are working for Kelleher. I would be more sympathetic to your complaints that you are having a frustrating experience in Wikipedia if you would at least answer the question about conflict of interest. I read the draft. The draft is clearly written to praise Kelleher rather than to describe him neutrally. Drafts that are written to praise their subject often do not establish his biographical notability. You have been told that, if you have questions about the deletion, you can take them to deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the long delay in returning to this. I was on holiday for a brief time and then plunged into a complicated project when I returned to work. To answer your question, Dennis Kelleher is a professional colleague and a friend, he is not my employer. He knew that I was a frequent visitor to Wikipedia and gave me the original draft of his page, which I then used in my first foray into Wikipedia.

As you both suggest that editing the original text is the best approach, I have several questions: 1. Where do I go to edit the text? My original draft? Should I create a new entry?

2. There are big chunks of the original bio that, while not footnoted, are sourced and were listed in the reference section. As my sourcing was raised as an issue, what is the best way to fix this? Other footnotes?

3. The criteria for notability is the "availability of in depth third party sources on the subject." That is why I included several new sections, showing that Kelleher is a subject-matter expert on financial matters having appeared in the media, testified on Capitol Hill, etc. My goal was to specifically satisfy that criteria of notability as that was the *sole* issue cited when the original page was deleted. If that was the wrong approach what should I do differently?

4. As you both suggest, the language needs to be toned down to be more neutral. But that brings us back to question #1. Where do I go to do that?

Many thanks for any and all help. Charnich (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Charnich and Robert McClenon:
  1. The original draft, which is located at Draft:Dennis M. Kelleher.
  2. Yes, footnote them. This is especially important as the article is a [[WP:BLP|biography of a living person}}. This means that whilst the current sourcing would be acceptable for say an article on a football stadium, since the article is a BLP, the standard for sourcing is higher; inline citations (not just sources listed in the references section) are required for any claim that is challenged or likely to be challenged.
  3. Lots of the current references do not demonstrate notability as they merely mention him in passing; whereas something like an interview would demonstrate in depth coverage (e.g. the NYT source). I do not have the time to go through all 48 references to see if they are in-depth enough to demonstrate notability at present; at face value I would not regard notability to be a reason why the article would be declined if it was submitted to be moved at WP:AFC.
jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

14:38:29, 31 August 2017 review of submission by A list music


This article was supposed to be for the german wikipedia. I don't know how it landed in the english part. Could you tell me how to transfer it to the german section? There is already an article about the Hexameron composition on the english site. Thanks and regards,

@A list music: It already exists at de:Hexameron_(Komposition). Place {{db-g7}}} on the draft currently located here to delete it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

AIV about User:Paghadar

Just FYI, the user has recreated the page after one deletion already - prior to the edit war you reported him over: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=VIP_HEXA .

I doubt it will stay deleted this time around. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'll keep an eye out. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk Q&A

Hi jcc, thanks for your response to my question about the draft page / COI issue. I've added the "paid submission" template info to my user page now. Can you confirm that I'm clear to proceed now? Thanks!

Blench (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Add the same template to the corresponding 'talk page' of the article i.e. Talk:Dr. Josef M. Miller, then you're good to go. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jcc: Done! Thanks again. Blench (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A quick note about stubs

Hello! I noticed that recently on Why We Sleep: The New Science of Sleep and Dreams you added a {{stub}} tag. If you don't mind, try looking for a more specific tag on WP:Stubs; it helps everyone out. There's various scripts to help you do this as well. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nerd1a4i: I'll try to do that in the future, though in the past I've found that editors tend to change the stub and category tags I initially place anyway. Thanks for the tip. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Even if they end up getting changed, it is still useful to try to narrow it down beyond just a plain {{stub}}. Thanks for giving it a whirl! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Little Ricky

Hello. Would you please revert your good faith move of the article Ricky Ricardo, Jr.. Fictional juniors get to keep their commas, per several RM discussions (Buffalo Bill, Jr., Steamboat Bill, Jr., Chris Columbus, Jr.). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn:  Done Dicklyon requested this at WP:RM/TR; for a quicker response you can post back at WP:RM/TR#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Didn't know Dicklyon had requested it, thought you had changed it as a good faith edit. As for quicker response, if it were any quicker you'd be pitching for the Dodgers. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
By the way, those were all on-screen show titles. There's no such precedent for character names. But we can do an RM or call it Little Ricky. Dicklyon (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Little Ricky seems the common name of the character, used throughout the titles of individual episodes and throughout the article itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Jcc, Randy has withdrawn his objection (see my talk page), and suggests I put it through as a technical again. Or you could just move it again. What do you suggest? Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for putting up with the back-and-forth changes. Dicklyon came up with a doll put out by the show at the time of its production which lists the child's name without a comma, which is probably enough for the move for now. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Cool, all done now. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Device42 inc.

HI Jcc, I noticed Device42 inc. in the new pages feed. Its history shows that you marked it reviewed. There is no record of anyone unreviewing it, but it still sits in the queue as unreviewed. Did you intend for it to be re-reviewed? Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: Yes, I PROD-tagged it, which automatically marked the page as reviewed. I then unreviewed it- I'm aware there's a current discussion about whether to do this or not but I've always felt with PROD tags to mark as unreviewed since the PROD tag could be taken off at any moment. I'm not sure why my un-review isn't showing up. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks a lot! You teach me a lot with your last review on an article I submit. Thanks for your all attentions. I will keep editing others articles and submitting new ones to learn. Thanks! KapilAshok (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

11:51:41, 10 October 2017 review of submission by Aradhanaaram1234

@Aradhanaaram1234: Hi there. Did you have a question? jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination

I wondered if you would possibly let me access the London Central Portfolio article which was recently deleted. I appreciate now why it was deleted; it did not occur to me at the time it was written that it would read as being an advertisement - in fact I was quite careful to make it as neutral as possible - but I can see places now where I've used inappropriate language. My intention is to rewrite it and then ask other editors to review before resubmitting. Thank you very much. Francesca w (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Francesca w: Contact the deleting admin at their talk page and ask them to email the content to you- the link is here: User talk:Alex Shih. I agree that the Wp:AFC process is the best way to get feedback so it doesn't get deleted again; equally I would be happy to take a look at any new drafts. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jcc: Oh my apologies, I was confused and thought you were the deleting admin. Thank you very much for your help! Francesca w (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Is my Draft:Plane of polarization talking about the same thing as linear polarization?

Only in the sense that linear polarization is also called plane-polarization, as my draft indicates. But the meaning of "plane of polarization" still needs to be addressed.

Gavin R Putland (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC).

Lurker comment: That looks to me like it would make a good section in the linear polarization article. Dicklyon (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The whole draft is a bit long for that, but I suppose the lead section might be suitable. Gavin R Putland (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC).
P.S. (explanatory note): Due to my alleged violation of my own copyright (which has since been addressed), most of the submitted draft is missing from the visible versions. Also note that all versions prior to 18 September are versions of my sandbox having nothing to do with this proposed article.  — Gavin R Putland (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC).
@Gavin R Putland: I've asked for deleted content to be restored. I can't obviously access the deleted content (and please forgive my lack of technical understanding) but is what you're saying that the article you've written is about the definition (and the ambiguity surrounding it) of plane of polarization? What would be an appropriate title then? jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jcc: Thanks. Yes, the proposed article is about the term and how it ended up with two contradictory meanings. The requested article title is implicit in the draft title: "Plane of polarization". Of course, if someone creates the article, I can easily restore the content if that isn't done in the creation process. The creation request was initially processed by @SwisterTwister: but it seems to have gone quiet (I guess he's busy). I course I owe an apology for my initial ignorance of the text-release process for avoiding apparent breaches of one's own copyright.  — Gavin R Putland (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC).

Edit summary

Somehow you seem to be under the impression, that I was gloating about the block of DStrauss.No, I wasn't. Had I been gloating, I would not have undone the collapsing with thoughts about extending courtesy and asked for a second CU opinion about the block on his t/p.I would hope that in future, that you would choose your edit summaries a bit more wisely.Thank you.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 18:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Godric on Leave: In my edit summary I was actually referring to Kudpung's initial hatting of the section. In fact as proof of this, if you check your notification log, I thanked your un-hatting using the thanks feature to make it clear that I agreed with your un-hatting. It would be very odd for someone to thank you and then accuse you of gravedancing, wouldn't it? It's such a shame you misinterpreted my edit summary as being directed at you and elected to leave such a terse response here; I've been a huge fan of your work, especially since we share so many common editing areas- across WP:NPP, WP:COIN, and WP:AFC to name a few. I hope this makes things clearer to you. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Many apologies.Somehow, there was no thank notification but my thank log mentioned yours' thanking me.Warm regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 04:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Here... have a goat.

Thanks for your feedback.. I mean ACTUALLY thanks... you're the first reviewer who actually gave me direct and useful feedback. Getting me one step closer to closure, which is a nice thing.

Ian.T.Ross (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

15:05:26, 5 November 2017 review of submission by Veronica Roman


Hi there, and thanks for your review!

I created this page because I believe it's helpful for those recent graduates to know about this service - an online platform that is legit that helps lawyers get matched with document review jobs.

I read the 'notability' section on Wikipedia before submitting, however, I thought this was valid.

The three articles are actually about the service, which in itself is relatively new. They are independent and third-party sources. They also mention the new technology - the first of its kind - and how it may eventually be the way of the future.

If this is not valid, what might be? Would a similar type of article saying the same thing work - or do you need something huge, like a Forbes or BusinessWeek post to make it more "legitimate"?

I believe that ALM is a pretty big publication so suits this purpose.

Please help with your guidance!

Thanks.

Request on 15:08:49, 5 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Veronica Roman


Just another point, I don't see that all the sources were venture funding reports, acquisitions etc. Bloomberg and PR Newswire references can be deleted, if that will help the article go through. There are three legitimate, independent pieces that are valid and not mere mentions of the company. (Please help!)

Veronica Roman (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Veronica Roman: Yes, those were just examples. In this specific case the Bloomberg, Pitchbook and PRNewswire references do not count towards notability as I have explained. " A similar type of article saying the same thing" would indeed work as long as it is from an independent source, not a reprinted press release. I am not sure what you are referring to by "the ALM source". jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

15:35:14, 5 November 2017 review of submission by Veronica Roman


Hi again,

The PRNewswire, PitchBook, and Bloomberg references I have deleted, including the info they pertained to. Those weren't really necessary, but the other three articles I left because those seem to fit. I can add more information as it becomes available. Will this work? Thanks so much for your guidance! It's my very first article and I'm hopeful I can get it right to publish it, and maybe do more for WIkipedia!

@Veronica Roman: Hi Veronica. Personally I would judge the three sources provided to be insufficient evidence for notability; more sources of that calibre would be required. Wikipedia sets quite a high bar for notability, and personally I'd judge that were I to accept the page now, it would later be deleted. I know that this can be hard to hear; you might want to host this content on your own blog or website? I note that you've resubmitted the article so let's let another reviewer take a look and see what they think. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for suggesting the changes to my article Draft:Roposo. I have added couple more references. Awaiting your feedback on those. Div23 (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you also review my Draft:Pickyourtrail.com?

Hi Jcc, I have tried submitting a draft for one of my deleted page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pickyourtrail.com. Can you review this one also and suggest me if its eligible to be published on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Div23 (talk • contribs)

@Div23: You'll have to submit the draft for re-review by a different reviewer but my take is that the two sources you have added are good; however on the whole I think that the coverage is still not sufficient- for example take this article which is roughly similar to yours and has been nominated for deletion. I think the same would occur if your draft is accepted. As to the other draft, essentially you have the same problems. The BusinessLine article for example is unacceptable as paid promotion and entrackr doesn't seem to be a reliable source. The Times of India source notes at the bottom "(This series captures the startup ecosystem in the state)" suggesting that this is just run of the mill coverage which again is insufficient. We set quite a high bar for acceptance; and I think the fair thing to do is to let another reviewer take a look at it. I hope this helps. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jcc: Have resubmitted. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Div23 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

11:36:34, 4 October 2017 review of submission by SLSSLee



Hello,

Thank you very much for your feedback on the article, it all makes sense and is very useful.

I've been trying to find some more evidence of notability from reliable sources, but to be honest I am struggling! I have found the following, and wondered if you would mind casting your eye over them to see if any of them would be suitable? I have my doubts but just wanted to check:

• http://www.industrialprocessnews.co.uk/delivering-the-precise-quality-you-need/ • http://eastmidlandsbusinessnews.co.uk/scientific-laboratory-supplies-appoints-new-marketing-director/ • http://www.biocity.co.uk/whos-here/biocity-companies/biohub/scientific-laboratory-supplies-ltd • https://www.hull-humber-chamber.co.uk/members/scientific-laboratory-supplies-ltd • https://www.epmmagazine.com/technology/lonza-appoints-uk-distributor-for-cell-biology-media/

I take on board your point about writing in prose as well.

Many thanks in advance! SLSSLee (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@SLSSLee: Sorry, must have missed this but I see your draft got re-reviewed. With these specific sources, they are closely based off press releases that we wouldn't consider them good indicators of notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Closed discussion

Hi Jcc,

I noticed that you recently closed a discussion at WT:F1. While I appreciate what you are trying to do, I don't think that declaring a consensus and closing the discussion is the right course of action.

The discussion in question was originally about moving a series of articles. It was a big, complex move and one that was potentially quite controversial as it required changing something that had been established since the first days of Wikipedia. It took us six weeks just to get support for the move and had to be handled carefully as previous attempts at moving the articles had been spectacular failures.

I know that I am the lone dissenting voice in that discussion about article leads but I was also the instigator behind the original discussion. The wording of article leads was never in the scope of the discussion. It was, by rights, something that could have—and should have—been handled independently. Given the scale and complexity of the original discussion, editors could well have been unaware of the later discussion. Reading everything was certainly a deterrant to taking part. While "I didn't know it was being discussed" is hardly an argument against a consensus, I think it's a different story when a separate issue to the original purpose of the discussion.

Secondly, when we originally tried to settle on a wording, editors developed the habit of rejecting proposals if one person disagreed with it. It wasn't the wisest course of action, but we expected a speedy resolution. When that did not happen, there was a lull before another attempt was launched. When that attempt came about, some editors wanted a definitive conclusion. They wanted to avoid rejecting things based on one editor's dislike, but at the same time refused to take into consideration anything that had previously been rejected, including things that were rejected based on one editor's dislike.

In short, I don't think the discussion was handled properly. I think we rushed to a conclusion for the sake of having a conclusion. So I would like to ask you to reconsider your decision. Instead of closing the discussion and declaring a consensus, I think a better was forward would be to close the discussion and restart it with its own section quite separate for its current location to allow more editors to take part in a more constructive discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cherkash, DeFacto, Prisonermonkeys, Tvk1, GTHO, and DH85868993: I'm sorry, but I was asked to assess the consensus in that particular discussion between the six of you, and the fact is that within that particular discussion the consensus that emerged was for the proposed wording. I did think about this and the relatively limited participation from outsiders in the discussion and the best way forward if you truly wanted a 'final' decision would be to launch an RfC on the proposed wording- a simple yes or no vote. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I personally did exactly that (the simple yes or no vote) – and the results were all but one "for", and one "against". cherkash (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Then I'm afraid that whoever asked you to do it misrepresented the discussion. Everyone who took part in that discussion was well aware of my concerns about properly following WP:CONSENSUS and yet made no attempt to address it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I did read the discussion, yes, all of it... jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Given the refusal of certain people to address concerns about properly attaining a consensus, one could easily argue that the current consensus is invalid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
You were and still are the only one opposing the consensus. Consensus is not unanimity and you cannot veto it by yourself. It's time now to concede your defeat and drop the stick. This has gone for long enough now.Tvx1 16:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm well aware of what consensus is. I'm also well aware of how consensus should be formed. And this consensus was not formed properly. For someone who rigidly enforces policy, you're awfully quick to overlook this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, you're the only complaining that it wasn't properly formed and everyone can see it's because it didn't go your way. You're just clutching at straws to keep this going on. Time to move on.Tvx1 17:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Request on 22:20:54, 7 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Digivizer


Hi. This relates to my submission on the company miRunners, and your feedback. appreciate the direction. For now, I will consider your comments and any next steps our end. One point of confirmation though (and this is difficult to answer, I concede!): at what point does a subject evolve from being a mere candidate to becoming a subject of sufficient merit? In this case, would that be if, as a business, it demonstrates considerable growth and that growth is reported externally (for example, in media)?

Would also welcome direction on HOW to declare our interest in this particular entry: miRunners is a client of Digivizer's, but I found it difficult to make that connection explicit. (Again, academic in this instance, but useful for any future submissions we might consider.)

Digivizer (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Digivizer: Hi. Yes, there are a number of different ways we measure when a business is notable, which you can read at WP:NCORP and WP:GNG but a good indicator is, as you say, when a business receives significant coverage in media.
To declare your COI; replace the {{connected contributer}} template you currently have with {{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=InsertUsername|U1-employer=InsertNameOfEmployer|U1-client=InsertNameOfClient}}, filling out the fields as necessary. If the page is accepted, this will be moved away onto the article talk page. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Help with the "BitShares" article

Hello, JCC You have marked my article as a copyright infringement material and put it up for speedy deletion. the copyrighted material was linked and turned out to be this steemit.com post: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cryptoctopus/inspiration-to-advertise-and-market-bitshares-decentralized-exchange-dex 

I would like to know how does my article infringes on anything written in this post and how are they both even remotely related.

Thank you in advance. Egor — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERavid (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Primefac removed the copyvio portion, though I note that there remains a section which is copied from this source. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, missed it. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Okay, I think I'm starting to get it... Is the problem the copy-paste itself? Would it be fine if I'd rewritten it in my own words? Talk to me guys. ERavid (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi JCC, I've edited the article, checked it with copyvio and it seems alright, could you please take a look? ERavid (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@ERavid: Copyvio wise it seems fine, but there are issues with the promotional tone of the article. An example of this is the paragraph beginning with "few weeks later Daniel came to a conclusion that mining...". jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@JCC: Edited this one. I think it would be more effective if you pointed out all the problematic parts and I wouldn't drive you crazy with minor edits :) ERavid (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, Primefac told me it looks good ERavid (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
For clarity, I said it looked good from a cv perspective. I apologize for not being clearer on that subject. I mostly skimmed the rest so I'm not surprised if I missed some minor promotional text. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@JCC: Hi JCC, as I have explained to Primefac, the logo doesn't have any copyright - as it is an open source, community driven project, so nothing belongs to anyone. Knowing this I wanted to be on the safe side and asked Stan Larimer (the father of Dan Larimer, creator of Bitshares) if I can use it and he told me that I can. The conversation took place in the comment section to this article: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@stan/stan-larimer-s-2nd-live-appearance-on-the-lars-larson-show and went as follows: Me: "Hey @stan, i'm trying to put together a wiki page for bitshares and i need to use the logo. In order to use it i need a licence from the creator - do you have any idea how can i acquire this licence? Or who i need to contact?" Stan: "The logo may be used for any BitShares related promotional activity."

As I couldn't find any option that would suit this case in the wikimedia commons, so I marked it as mine. If you can advise me on how to do it more appropriately just tell me ERavid (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a lot of doubling of effort going on between me and Primefac. "The logo may be used for any BitShares related promotional activity" is pretty meaningless copyright wise- does that mean someone could change a few things and use it as their company logo? Are they allowed to sell copies of it? If someone were to edit it, do they have to share it under the same license? Additionally whoever created the logo owns the copyright, so they need to explicitly release it. I'm sorry if this wasn't made clearer to you- the issue of copyright can be quite complicated but the release you have isn't good enough, and marking it under a license you admit it isn't licensed under is similarly a no-no. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Since you're more heavily involved, I'll let you deal with it. And (again to clarify) I didn't think to check the logo, just the text. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll sort this thing out ERavid (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft Pembroke Coast Express

Hi

I see you have declined my article Pembroke Coast Express once again. I don't understand why, simply because a similar article created by someone else, has been passed with a lot less information that what I have included. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Welshman 209.93.173.47 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@209.93.173.47: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; but additionally that article is very poor and I am tempted to nominate it for deletion. However, what that article does have is at least one source- "Locomotive Headboards"- whereas yours merely has the GWR website. Anyway the main point is that "aha that article is rubbish, let my rubbish article through" is not an argument I'll accept. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That was not my argument at all, and whilst I could quite easily call you something for that comment, I won't otherwise its the bullying and blocking brigade. I was merely saying if that article was allowed by one of your editors, why isn't mine. I can't be one rule for one and another rule for another, and if that article is being considered for deletion it proves my point that your moderators are not doing the job right. What I want YOU to tell is what YOU want to see to get the MY article ACCEPTED. I hope that has made it crystal clear. 209.93.173.47 (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@209.93.173.47: That's my whole point- the article you keep pointing to was created in 2006 where we had no such procedures for acceptance like we do today. Let me try and explain a bit better. All subjects- trains, people, companies- have to be fundamentally notable to have an article on Wikipedia, and this notability has to be proven within the article with reliable sources. For proof of notability, we'd accept things like mentions in railway magazine articles, features in books written about this train service or articles where the author's taken a ride and written about it. If you can't meet those requirements, I'm sorry but it won't be moved- if you find this topic interesting, perhaps you might want to host this content on your own blog or website? jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. However these items are "Notable" just because it isn't of interest to you, it might be to others, naming trains are part of a British tradition going back to the 1850's. The articles I have created go back to the 1950's, therefore this is history, and can be linked to [[Great Western Railway (train operating company)) and British Railways and Great Western Railway therefore, I am making a good contribution to Wikipedia. I don't appreciate your attitude. 209.93.173.47 (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@209.93.173.47: I think it's best if I let another reviewer take a look at it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A word of advice

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the deceased equine. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: Very odd post- the only thought I have is check the dates of what you're reading? or did I accidentally review a controversial AfC draft? jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Aha- just checked my watchlist. No, I'm not the IP that started the RfC on Cary Grant, if that's what you're trying to ask? jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
My error, I think. Apologies. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Gro CRM considered for deletion

Hello jcc,

The Gro CRM page I created is being considered for deletion. I read the concerns. I am in the process of updating the page further. Any suggestions or guidance would be very helpful. Thanks! Shanescott127 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft talk:Karl Roßmann

G'day, I am currently working through Category:Draft-Class military history articles and came across Draft talk:Karl Roßmann in that category. I note that you moved that talk page from Talk:Karl Roßmann, even though Karl Roßmann is a redirected mainspace page. Just curious, but can you please clarify what your reasoning was with this move? I feel that the talk page history that is now at Draft talk:Karl Roßmann probably actually belongs at Talk:Karl Roßmann to provide context as to why the article was actually redirected. I don't want to move it back, though, without checking with you first to see if there is maybe something I am missing in this. Anyway, thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert:Yes, this article stands out in my memory. Essentially the article was submitted to AfC as Draft:Karl Roßmann and I accepted it. After accepting it, I did a bit of research as to whether the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was acceptable notability-wise, and found a discussion which I remember conclusively stated that it was not, so I redirected the page to the list of Knight's Cross recipients. I can't remember why I moved the Talk page back into the draft namespace, I have no objections to you moving it back. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
G'day, no worries, thanks for getting back to me. I have moved the page back and performed a histmerge to hopefully make the attribution clearer. Merry Christmas! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Jcc, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
Chris Troutman (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Request on 19:31:32, 30 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Unexpositive


Companies of the same scale and notability have successfully passed approval, but this one was rejected.

Hi JCC.Thanks for reviewing my article submission about a company named Online Rewards. Surprisingly, you've rejected it due to notability criteria. The thing is that I noticed similar Wikipedia pages about similar companies that have been approved. For example, Incentive solutions. I can't say that this article reads less "promotional" and that the company is more notable or it refers to more valuable articles. In other words, I think they are almost identical. Could you please point out where there is the difference that allows to approve that one and reject this one? I would like to try to submit it again, because I believe it would be great for business-oriented Wikipedia readers to learn more about the market of employee incentive and reward services. Many thanks.

Unexpositive (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Jcc, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:02:19, 2 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Nickkaiser


Hi Jcc, thanks for your review. My son's school recently started using School Cash, and when doing research I noticed there was nothing on Wikipedia. I've wanted to try submitting an article for a while, so I thought this might be a good topic to try my hand.

Would these articles be sufficient? The company that makes School Cash, KEV Group, was named one of CIO Review's 20 most promising educational software providers in 2014: https://education.cioreview.com/vendor/2014/kev_group

KEV was also named to Deoitte's Technology Fast 500, as one of the fastest growing technology company's in North America in 2016: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/us-tmt-2016-fast-500-winners-by-rank.pdf

The software has also been written about in The Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation newspaper: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/10/13/add-on-fees-for-online-school-payments-a-shock-to-some-gta-parents.html

The School Cash Suite is the only product KEV makes.

Would adding these to the article be sufficient?

Thanks again!Nickkaiser (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Nickkaiser (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nickkaiser: I would be reluctant to accept the first two sources- they seem like non-notable awards and poor indicators of notability. However, the Toronto Star is more promising as a source, and yes, I would accept that as a indication of notability- add it to the article. What the Toronto Star source does that the other two doesn't is talk about the software products in depth, and obviously being a national newspaper helps. Are there are any more sources like that- or perhaps looking at it from another angle- a third party independent source showing that the software is used in lots of Canadian schools? jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Senate/Gubernatorial election references

Hey, thanks for the thanks regarding election pages. I'm mostly just working on having a working "template" page in place for these upcoming elections. The problem is that these templates are just that, templates. Since these elections aren't taking place until the next cycle, there are going to be very few references floating about to use for these pages, and not really a lot of information that can be necessarily cited, period. I'll keep an eye out and add any references that I find, but I wouldn't want to add unrelated or barely relevant references just for the sake of having them. Westroopnerd (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 06:48:30, 15 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Vikas9gupta


Hello Jcc, You declined my Draft:Meenakshi Education and said that you need sources (newspapers, magazines) can be in any language and don't have to be online.

Does that mean I can submit newspaper cutting (Images) as a source??

Please Answer My Query

Thanks Have a nice day


Vikas9gupta (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vikas9gupta: Hi and thanks for your message. Yes, that's exactly right. To do this, you'd use the cite news template: the name of the newspaper, the headline, who wrote it and when they wrote it as a reference- for help, see Help:Referencing for begineers or Template:Cite web which gives pointers on how to use it. Let me know if you need any help. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello Jcc,
Please can u check this link below
And tell if this appropriate to be used as a reference.
And also how can we use it in the cite press release template
{{cite press release |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |location= |publisher= |agency= |access-date=2018-01-16}}
Thanks
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas9gupta (talk • contribs) 07:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Vikas9gupta: Yes, this is appropriate- but a word of warning, normally primary press releases are not. However, this appears to be a newspaper clipping uploaded online by the school, which is acceptable- the newspaper is a secondary source. To do this, use {{cite news | author =<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> | title = replace this with the title of the article| url = paste the earlier URL here | work = add the name of the newspaper here| location = add the location of the regional newspaper | date = add what date the newspaper came from| access-date = add today's date}}. Hope this helps, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey Jcc,
I have resubmitted my article with newly added references as per as your guidelines.
Please check my draft article once again and assist me for any improvement which has to be made.
Thanks
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas9gupta (talk • contribs) 06:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Vikas9gupta and 1997kb: Hi- 1997kb has pointed out that these may be press releases. Did the newspaper report on it themselves or did you send them the story? If you sent them the story, then I'm sorry, but it's possible that if you've got no additional reliably sourced articles which talk about the school in depth, then it may not be notable for an article. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcc/Archive_6&oldid=1090966819"