User talk:Jcc

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

• SLSSLee (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Scientific Laboratory Supplies (SLS) Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Digivizer (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MiRunners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

Please don't do that again

You join a long line of people who have been made to look troublesome on the Williams article by doing this. Tell me, how did you happen upon the article, especially in light of the fact that you've contributed exactly fuck all to the article since it was started. Cassianto^Talk 22:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: To quote you, "bugger off, you're not welcome here". You were banned from my talk page- I can, and should you persist (given this isn't your first time post-ban) in posting to my talk page, will report you. Nice to know you're working on your civility issues. jcc (tea and biscuits) 00:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I might have been a bit too verbose above. Cassianto- I'll make it even clearer. You are banned from my talk page. I've asked you before, politely reminded you to post elsewhere the last time you forgot, but this is becoming irritating. Please don't post on my talk page again- AN mandatory notices, sure, but I can't deal with any more of your uncivil insults being flung at me on my own user talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 00:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)