User talk:Jcc/Archive 5

Need your help on MKU page
Hi JCC! A month back, you'd reviewed this page, and helped improve it to be on Wikipedia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKU_(company) I'm trying to improve it further. But there's this one thing that i need your help with. I'm not able to put the site's address in the info-box. Every time i do this, there is a message that the site address has been put in the blacklist. Can you please look into this and help? Best regards, ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Dabby (talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd either ask here or just leave it, having it linked in the infobox is hardly vital. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Jcc. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

re: Speedy Deletion for Jones Hope Wooten
Hello Jcc, I left this same text as an edit to the Talkback you left on my Talk page. I am not certain just how to reply to your original Talk message. I am the editor of the JOnes Hope Wooten Wikipedia page. The information on the page might be similar to the About page on their website, but I don't think it was identical to that page. Since you have deleted it, I cannot compare the two pages side by side. Is there any change you can undelete the page so we can make the edits necessary to make them less similar? We did go through a photo confirmation process earlier this summer where JHW sent their permission for the photo to be used on the Wikipedia page and giving it public access. If you want something like that for the Wikipedia content, I'm sure they would be happy to do that, too. Thank you. Njnorland (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they would need to release it under a free license like the photo- see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for a guide, but essentially whoever wrote the about page would need to fill in Declaration of consent for all enquiries and email it from an address associated with the original publication (e.g. a company address) to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I can confirm a large chunk of the text dating back to when the article was created was copied verbatim from their about page, but if you want a copy of the text you should ask User:BU Rob13. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello JCC, I left a message for Rob13 to send me a copy of the deleted JonesHopeWooten page, but so far, I haven't gotten any replies. Does this normally take some time for a response? I'm hoping that I didn't do it incorrectly. I'd like to rebuild their page as soon as possible. Thank you for any insight you can offer. Njnorland (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Thank you for trying to argue on my behalf for a send of the deleted JonesHopeWooten page. I appreciate your time and effort for this. I am so disappointed mainlybecause of the links to printed materials that we used as citations for the article. Thise were not an insignificant piece of research and I amnot sure I have them all saved. I am still confused by this speedy deletion since the words f the wiki article are essentially the words of the playwrights themselves and they are more than willing to provide the release that Wikipedia wants. I willworkmore onthis when I return from vacation. For now I am limited by the Wiki app that my tablet is using. It's amazingly difficult to reply to any talk. I hope that this piece gets posted correctly. Best regards, Njnorland (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Njnorland (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for sending me a Barnstar
Thank-you for sending me a Barnstar. I have no idea who you are or why you felt prompted to show this act of kindness.

I wonder if I could prevail on you to do me a favour?

I have completely overhauled a number of pages in the marketing area which had poor quality tags attached. Thankfully two of them have now had these tags removed. But there are two pages that continue to have quality tags despite undergoing substantial revamp in terms of content, structure, referencing and formatting. The relevant pages are:
 * Market segmentation
 * Brand awareness

Would you be so kind as to run your eyes over them briefly, and if you think it is appropriate remove the tags? I am not suggesting that they are perfect, but they are both a major improvement on the previous versions and I am confident that there are no glaring issues outstanding. I do not expect you to read them in their entirety - but just a cursory glance should demonstrate that the specific quality tags no longer apply.

Many thanks, and regards BronHiggs (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I will read the pages, and go over them as best I can, but I feel it would be inappropriate for me to remove the tags as I am not an expert in the area of marketing, and that task might best left to someone who knows more about marketing than I do. Apologies, I know it can be disenchanting to have an article you have worked a lot on to have a tag left on it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem. You are off the hook. The page on market segmentation appears to have had its tags lifted by an unknown person and the page on Brand awareness is relatively small and of little consequence. But thanks for considering it.

Your rejection of Draft page Draw SVG
Your comments concerning rejection of the Draw SVG page are incorrect. I suggest taking the following information in a rational, common sense manner and rescinding your rejection. You claim that the software is mine - you are incorrect, as it is not mine. If you look at the metadata (I am sure you have not), the software developer is Joseph Liard. I have asked Joseph if I can prepare an information article about his software tool, and he is in agreement. So your assumption about self-promotion is totally wrong and is not a reasonable ground for rejection of the draft article. I put it to you that the reason "requires substantial references" is subjective and vaguely defined, and also cannot be used as grounds for rejection. There are not specific Wikipedia guidelines concerning what constitutes "substantial references". The references I have included are there to INFORM readers of the tool's value, like any other software tool on Wikipedia. For example, there is a published page on "Dia" software - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dia_(software) - which is also a graphics tool like Draw SVG, and that has only three references. Two of those are most likely created by the software developer, with apparently only one being an independent review. If Wikipedia is able to publish that page, then Draw SVG is also a candidate. There is now a "substantial reference" added to my article - a review in a computer publication - which now qualifies the article on Draw SVG for publishing. May I suggest you re-review your decision in light of this information. If you cannot come to a decision after a night's rest, then rescind your rejection and pass this on to another reviewer who has experience in software issues and can understand what "free dissemination of factual information" means. Dave Copeboox (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's try and outline this more clearly. If you look at the page, I did not reject your submission, instead I "commented" on it. It was supposed to be a helpful message telling you why your article was rejected by SwisterTwister- just to repeat- I did not reject it, rather SwisterTwister did. Secondly, you quote "substantial references" again and again, but as above, I did not write this- SwisterTwister did.


 * I shall attempt to help you regardless. I believe that SwisterTwister's request for "substantial references" is based off WikiProject Computing's guidelines for software articles. You quote that Dia (software) got accepted, therefore your article should be accepted- a tu quoque fallacy- the article on Dia has been on Wikipedia since 2007 and has been checked by multiple editors in that time, all of whom have concluded that it is notable enough to avoid deletion- yet as you can see, there is still a requirement for these references and hence there is a tag on top of the article.


 * In response to your last point- I cannot "rescind my rejection" as I did not reject the article, however I see that you have chosen to resubmit the article, and that User:Onel5969 has declined it for the same reasons I pointed out in my comments, which would seemingly confirm that my comments aren't far off the mark.


 * I would also recommend that you drop the sarky tone, all the reviewers are trying to help you out! jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wide Awake (Parachute album)
Wide Awake (Parachute album) has been deleted. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks- I've accepted and moved the AfC draft to that name now. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jcc!


Happy New Year! Jcc, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

 Class 455 ( talk  | stand clear of the doors!)''' 17:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

New Pages Review
Hi Jcc. We've noticed that after being a regular page patroller through the Page Curation system since 2013, you suddenly stopped in January and are now concentrating on AfC. If there is a particular reason why you are no longer patrolling new pages, do please let us know as it will help us to make further improvements to the system and encourage others to use it. If in the meantime you have no further use for the Page Reviewer right, don't hesitate to ask me or another admin to remove your account from the group. It can be reinstated at any time on simple request. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A lack of time to do both mostly. Honestly, I prefer the "feedback loop" you get with AfC, where with promising drafts you can work with the writer to improve the article, hence given a straight choice between the two, I spend the time I do have on AfC. AfC editors naturally have more motivation and so work with AfC reviewers to improve their articles so it can be promoted into mainspace. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt feedback. I understand, and it's very important. NPP is indeed fairly impersonal and the dreary prt of it is that around 90% (at the last count) of pages by new users are totally inappropriate/unacceptable, and no amount of doctoring can possibly turn them into articles - as I am sure you are only too well aware. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Request on 15:48:19, 25 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Mintaine
I added a recent article in the Guardian newspaper covering this organisation (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/mar/10/china-toy-factories-migrant-workers-disney-mattel-toysrus) to increase notability. Can you tell me why this does not count as a major source?

Mintaine (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have resubmitted so another reviewer can take a look at it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

00:34:04, 5 June 2017 review of submission by Intellectual Designers
Hi Reviewer, How can a draft written in your own words have a citation or reference? My group and I thought every statement on wikipedia deserves a citation or reference. Please review our work, point out each and every copyright infrignment and teach us how to make it into our own words. Counting on your cooperation. Thank you.
 * See here- it tells you which parts have been copied (the highlighted bits) which I shan't replicate here for obvious reasons. For help on how to rewrite it into your own words, read this guide. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

OM10
Hi. I looked at OM10's talk page after seeing the COI noticeboard report. Your warning, level 4im - the harshest available, is WP:BITEY. The editor hadn't been warned previously, and it's quite possible they've no inkling they're doing anything wrong. I know AGF's not always easy, but these two articles are far from the worst I've seen, and the subjects at least seem notable. Maybe next time start with a Uw-advert2 and uw-coi. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. They are not a new editor. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Added several new sources and reviews to the draft page Hillbilly Golf Gatlinburg.
Hello,

I recently resubmitted the Hillbilly Golf Gatlinburg draft to be reviewed again. I have include several other sources, reviews and others talking about the golf course as well on these sites/web pages. Please review my draft again. Thanks very much and have a great rest of your week!

Best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6022:4500:88AF:B4AD:FB0D:7F2A (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the draft, please read WP:Referencing for beginners. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

01:16:37, 18 June 2017 review of submission by 2605:E000:6022:4500:B8E2:F0BC:25FD:94B7
Hello. Would you help me by telling me how to go about adding inline citations for the links I have already posted in the reference section? I will gladly add whatever is needed to get this draft approved. Thanks 👍
 * Hi, here's what you do. For every claim in your article e.g. "the golf club is the most visited golf club in Wikitown..." Add this code at the end of the relevant phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers (after any punctuation, and without a space before the beginning of the tag).


 * freetext


 * Whatever text, formatting, or templates you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "References" section as the text of your reference. I hope that's clearer! jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

06:53:16, 18 June 2017 review of submission by Hsan22
Hi Jcc,

Thankyou for feedback!

As you can see I am having a few issues getting the entry over the line.

Datacraft was a leader in the IT field during its nascent period in Australia, a large supplier to government and corporate (as well as contract R&D and manufacture)... it grew from a garage to having over 500 staff (in Aus alone), two manufacturing plants (electronics and a Gaming Machine facility supplying Aus casinos and clubs), R&D facility as well as extensive sales and service organisation across Aus and Asia ...AUD300 million in '97 would be around $AUD600-750 million today (not small!). Datacraft Asia was also a leader throughout Asia and gave Dimension Data the vehicle to expand thru Asia Pacific.

As most of Datacraft's life was pre-internet and (most likely) documented mainly in Aus trade publications and newspapers that require subsciptions there's not a lot of the 'high quality' info on this company to the depth apparently required, let alone verify all the functions or accomplishments of the company. Accordingly I have relied on multiple independent sources to establish notability. Each reference used is not related in any way to the subject company (as was a reference in my initial version) and from across the world (Aus, China, India, Germany and US).

I have also tried to apply "The Golden Rule" : eg I am sure Bloomberg would check the veracity/sources of its info.....and the book I referenced (is on Google Books, but can be purchased online) bills itself as "... the fourth edition of what has become an established reference work, MAJOR COMPANIES OF THE Guide to the FAR EAST & AUSTRALASIA. This volume has been carefully researched and updated since publication of the previous arrangement of the book edition, and provides more company data on the most important companies in the region. ..." The German publisher commenced in 1842 so I have a bit of confidence in what they say. The others are newspapers, a trade pubs and a commercial company database. Although the latter could be replaced with http://www.delisted.com.au/company/datacraft-limited if it helps.

So I guess I am asking for your advice on what further is required here given that not a lot is hitting the mark for notability .. do I just keep adding references??

Regards hsan22
 * The Bloomberg source you linked is a "profile" and not an indication of notability. Book sources/industry magazine sources/offline newspapers are absolutely fine to use in Wikipedia- you aren't just limited to online sources! To add them use Template:Cite book or Template:Cite news. Add a few and I'll take another look. I'm not sure that I'd agree with your assessment that "each reference used is not related in any way to the subject company" as source 2 is a press release, as is Business Standard (says so in the URL), Arnnet and SCMP might be ok. Don't worry about adding depth yet- just add a few sources to see notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

07:42:30, 19 June 2017 review of submission by Protium deuterium53
Has the draft been rejected just because of notability? If so, then there is not much that can be done and I will have to forgo trying to publish the article. If there is something else, which can be solved, kindly let me know, so that I can make the required changes and submit another draft for review.
 * Yes- that's it exactly- I'm glad you understand. I don't think the subject of the article is notable at the moment- maybe in a few years, but not now. As reviewers, we are supposed to only move articles if we think it would survive deletion in mainspace, and with the sources available now, I think this page would be deleted if it was in mainspace. Thank you for your contributions- please carry on editing Wikipedia! jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Mischa Weisbord value
Hi I corrected the Mischa Weisbord page according to your remarks. That was over two weeks ago, and it's waiting for a re-review. Please go over it, or else let me know what I should do next tovhave this page on the air. All the best Eran Reiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eranreiss (talk • contribs) 12:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * AfC is very backlogged at the moment- you might have to wait longer for another reviewer to look at it. I'll look at it myself if I get some time. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

COI
Many thanks for your reply - very helpful. David T Tokyo (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Immunopaedia: new article submission and concerns raised
Hi Jcc, thank you for reviewing my request to post an article on Immunopaedia and for taking the time to explain the problems with it. I’m a beginner wiki user/writer and was not aware of the issues you raised (but I am trying to educate myself!). The most prominent issue is my affiliation with immunopaedia- I was a participant in one of the courses offered by the International Union of Immunological societies and am now volunteering to spread the knowledge about this resource. Please advise how to proceed with this COI- can I delegate someone else to complete the article or is this hopeless and I should just delete it? I need to know this before I put more effort into editing it to address other issues raised by the editors. Many thanks again for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BombyxMori (talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's no problem at all- the important thing is that you've brought it up now. What I've done is add a tag over at the draft talk page: Draft talk:Immunopaedia stating that you're connected; but you can continue editing as normal (i.e. you can complete it yourself). If you need any help with addressing the concerns, let me know. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your guidance, this is very helpful! I'll continue working on it to address other concerns, i.e. style, toward resubmission.

Cyndago
All my sources are from either Cyndago's social media pages, or Marks pages on youtube, facebook etc. They are perfectly reliable since they're primary sources.76.174.35.70 (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are strict conditions regarding the use of social media as a source- see WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Also, lots of the article is still unsourced e.g. "Mark still makes YouTube videos, and today has 17M subscribers. Ryan and Matt still appear in his videos.", "As of October 2015, they have made 14 songs, and 40 sketches." jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Just source those and im fine?76.174.35.70 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to prove the subject is notable through coverage in secondary sources, following advice given to you. The vast majority of the sources currently are primary sources which are not useful in determining notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 07:02:15, 6 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Eajitesh
Thank you for review comments. Few questions: 1. What is meaning for "article would have to be stripped down to stub"? Please suggest.

2. As the person existed during time where not much was published on the internet, what could be alternative citing sources other than internet? Eajitesh (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically a stub is an article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject. Secondly you can cite information from newspapers, magazines etc. using templates like Template:Cite news. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your e-mail
A few comments. First, I don't normally reply to other editors' e-mail. Nothing to do with you personally. Second, whenever I check a particular account, I also look for sleepers and other accounts. This last time, btw, I found a couple. Third, obviously I'm missing something; what two column references? Finally, lest you think I don't appreciate your work and vigilance, I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Apologies for any misunderstandings on my part. I meant that the references list was split into two columns e.g. with or  . Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for you to be wrong. I don't think it's happened yet. BTW, can you e-mail me instructions on how you searched for these accounts? I find Wikipedia's search frustrating to use. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Lipgon
Hi Jcc, I've confirmed that some of the accounts you listed are indeed Lipgon. While I was at it, I found a couple more. I haven't checked all the accounts you sent, though. This is what I'd prefer if you're willing. Please reopen the SPI and list all the accounts you can find (or are willing spend the time to find). You don't have to provide the usual evidence. Just say something like Bbb23 (pinging me) asked me to reopen this with the above accounts. I understand the case may need to be moved to an older master, and that is partly why I'd prefer the logistics be handled there. As always, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)