User talk:MorbidEntree/tabs

Hi MorbidEntree. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Katie^talk 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you so much. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 19:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

MorbidEntree, I am looking for a voice of reason here. I have been given a edit war warning but the other editor is showing no willingness to collaborate. I have provided full sourcing and backing for my edits and all get back is this"

Congrats, those 'sources' are not reliable - you probably desperately found them in order to support your historically wrong opinion. Heck, one of them almost made my computer crash. If you look up above, you will see that there has been a discussion about this before, where I have listed several sources [6]. These sources are actually from known/prominent academic scholars and encyclopedias. Don't revert again, no consensus has been made - it's against the rules. You should read them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I did indeed read your sources, you should do it too - and while you're at it, go read a English dictionary so you learn what 'banter' means. I will lose this debate how exactly? Because a nationalistic user who supports historical revionism don't know the rules? He don't know what consensus means? He don't know what a reliable source is? Aha, I see - I will lose this debate indeed. Edit warring won't take you far at all, you'll see; unlike you I am actually patient. P.S saying that Bosworth is not reliable really says much about you ;). --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

These are disrespectful and degrading comments. How do I protect myself from these personal attacks? this is supposed to be an intellectual forum, but the tone that is set is most disagreeable. Amamedli (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Amamedli and HistoryofIran: Okay, I think that both of you need to find a 3rd opinion and come to a clear consensus on the article's talk page. You guys are getting nowhere by just bickering and throwing insults at each other. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 22:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right - I got carried away, soz. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: It's alright, just try to remember that not everyone is on the same frequency as you and try not to attack others for that. I'm sure that Amamedli doesn't want to butt heads with you, he just has a different way of seeing this issue than you do. So try and get together with him and some other editors to come to a clear and agreed-upon consensus and then make a change to the article, if necessary. I hope you guys get this sorted out well :) --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 22:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Naked for a Cause was a charity that annually campaigns to assist in the placement of nurses into small rural community's, educating women in the prevention and early detection of breast cancer. The update to the domain URL was not intended for advertising, or promotional purposes. Knowing the link was dead I had to put something there, I could not just leave it like that. I should not have put the photographers FB business page in its place though. I was just fussing over it. And I believe it would be better left blank now. Thanks for the nudge. Lukums (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 20:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review my earlier submission. I am new to the Wiki community and rushed in to update a Wiki before spending enough time to familiarise myself with Wikipedia.

I have misunderstood the information on this page relating to minor edits- (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing) 

Minor edits Further information: Help:Minor edit

The "minor edit" checkbox (circled) in the wikitext editor A check to the "minor edit" box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the version with your edit and the previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. The "minor edit" option is one of several options available only to registered users. Editors should not feel that marking a change as minor devalues their effort.

I was hoping when you have a moment of course that you would consider rolling back my last submission to "Pedro Virgil". I hope you will find the information to be relevant and easily verified. And of high value to to readers of Wikipedia Encyclopedia.

Thank-you!

"Without entities it becomes next to impossible to collect facts and generate knowledge. It is in the interlinking of all this that real magic happens. This is where trust crosses realms and goes from something that we feel in our hearts to something which machines can determine and ascribe a value to." - David Amerland

Google semantic search 12 week module certificate of completion Lukums (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this article. I hope you don't mind, but I added the article to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2016/Results, which tracks new and improved LGBT-related content as part of an ongoing Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you create or improve other LGBT articles between now and the end of June, feel free to update this page with your contributions. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to remember to do that id I make nother LGBT related article. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 04:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, to support 3RR violation of Afterwriting, you need to provide at least 4 diffs but you only provided 2. OldTraffordLover (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right. Sorry about that. Opened the discussion on the wrong noticeboard. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 07:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jujutsuan has been making changes to my own comments. This is not permitted. Reporting me for "edit warring" for reverting this is nonsensical as it is Jujutsuan who ought to be reported. Afterwriting (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hence why I reverted my report. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 07:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Then I'll take that as an apology. Afterwriting (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi could you tell me why is it a soapbox? Alexander See (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Alexander See: I replied to your email about this. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 12:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to make a friendly suggestion related to your reports at WP:UAA. Since UAA is normally quite backlogged, it is best to stick with reporting usernames that are most problematic. I notice that you have reported many users with obviously promotional usernames but that have never edited. Since there are a surprisingly large number of accounts that are created but never used, I think these ones can be safely ignored until they actually do edit. In fact, the username policy says, "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked". Therefore accounts that have never edited technically shouldn't be blocked yet (although they typically are, if reported). I think refraining from reporting these usernames will help us admins that patrol UAA and keep the backlog smaller. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I'll keep this in mind in the future when I'm deciding whether or not to report a username. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 22:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your work. Keep it up! Widr (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :) It's accidentally become my mission on here to fight against vandalism. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 16:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I am newer on this wikipedia..I don't know anything about this. How to create page, how to edit article and others. But your suggestion helps me a lot and makes easier to learn about those things .. Thanks you very much for your help and suggestion .. I aspect further suggestion and help in upcomming days.

   Thanks you  !!! अाशिष पौडेल (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You did a mistake... Satanism is a group of different ideological and philosophical beliefs because it's a free thinking religion. There are no holy books to define Satanism and all satanic cults and organisations are created by individuals because they consider the character of Satan to be a liberating figure who promotes individualism and independent thoughts. Some Satanists are independent of cults and organisations and are solitary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FraterLuciferi (talk • contribs) 07:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@FraterLuciferi: Sorry, but what is this in reference to? --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 10:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Testing out how my signature looks inline. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)

And now testing it using the tildes. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs) 16:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So a ew days ago, my user subpage User:MorbidEntree/tools was deleted by User:Athaenara per WP:U1 even though I didn't request it. I've contacted the admin via their talk page, but I haven't gotten a reply and they haven't been on for days. Is there another way for me to be able to get the page undeleted? --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 00:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell what happened there, but I have undeleted the page. Huon (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 02:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't what else to do here. Since early June I have been trying to engage User:HistoryofIran to align on the facts regarding Persian transliteration of Palace of the Shirvanshahs. I have provided what I believe to be detail, structured, well reasoned and cited justification three weeks ago. No responses have been provided by anyone on the talk page. I provided notice that I will consequently make this change. What is my remedy here? User claims I am not engaging in a discussion, but the opposite is true. Here is my justification. Can you guide me as to what to do. This is nothing but a well motivated obstruction of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amamedli (talk • contribs) 15:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Amamedli: To be honest, I had no idea that existed on the talk page. Perhaps him saying that you didn't engage in discussion was a result in the editors involved not being notified (since just linking to their user page doesn't always work, that what {{ping}} is for). I suggest opening a discussion between you and him, along with any other involved parties, and try to resolve it and establish a consensus. If that doesn't work and the problem still exists then I think that bringing in an admin or creating an WP:RFC about it. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 23:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I am learning about the method and tone of discussions here, but it is sad how many users are resorting to personal attacks and character assassinations over engaging in a discussion. In this specific situation what I am up against is a nativist group and the goal of 'infiltrating' Persian language into Azerbaijan related articles is to attempt to demonstrate Persian origin of Azerbaijan. This is a common argument among Iranians and Azeris and it is playing out here as well. Perhaps a transliteration is harmless but I think you would agree that higher standard of quality requires that facts are established and I need impartial help to navigate the web of wiki rules, The two users opposing me have no interest in facts otherwise they would have written 100 words and closed the issue. Instead they are trying to trap me into technical rule violations and none of the admins appear to be willing to dig into the matter. I need your help, so far you are the only who has been impartial yet interested in fair representation of facts... I know quite a lot about regional history but I am a rookie to Wikipedia rules. Can you guide me on how to get HistoryofIran and LouisAragon to engage in a fair debate? Please assume neither is interested in a debate with a worthy opponent. I have engaged both of them via article talk page, user page, admins... What else do I have to do? Appreciate the help..... P.s. I lived in Den Haag for 7 years... At 5'7" I felt like a little kid around the Dutch folks :) Amamedli (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I went to update the userbox table on User:MorbidEntree/ubx, but when I did the table broke with no clear reason why. I'm really dumbfounded by this. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 00:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The table didn't like the single line || way of doing things. I split the lines changed || into | and it seems to have fixed it. --Majora (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Huh, that's weird. Thanks a dozen for fixing it! :) --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 00:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• RoyBNZ (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Manuka Health New Zealand ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I edited the original submission to include only factual information sourced from a variety of sources as requested. This includes relevant research and history. I based my writing on other similar New Zealand companies featured on Wiki such as Fonterra and Trimax. I cannot understand how the article looks to be my own words when all information is cited? Please provide an example of what I can do better?

@RoyBNZ: There are two problems that I saw with the draft. One, it doesn't have reliable sources that back up why it is notable. Two, it seems to just be there to promote the company.--MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 10:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I used Trimax and My Food Bag as New Zealand companies of similar size and wrote the article based on their Wiki pages. I then edited the original article as requested by Robert to only include factual information that is all sourced/cited. The company is one of New Zealand's largest but I do not see how I can add any more "reliable sources". As you will see in this article, they run the biggest honey factory in New Zealand and sell their products in 50 countries - http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/71982643/Pacific-Equity-Partners-buys-Manuka-Health-in-a-sweet-private-equity-deal — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyBNZ (talk • contribs) 10:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@RoyBNZ: The part that makes it read like an advertisement is that it is a bombardment of facts. Try rewriting it using prose. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 10:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a bombardment of facts to begin with but a lengthy informative article. But when the first editor said it reads like an advertisement I thought they wanted me to remove prose and stick with the facts? Now I feel we have come full circle? So I should remove the facts and add prose again? Or do I cut it right back to look something like this very basic page on a NZ company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Bus_Builders — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyBNZ (talk • contribs) 10:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@RoyBNZ: It's fine to use prose, just as long as it doesn't have promotional language in it. So things like "This company helps it's customers find the best products" would be considered promotional, but "This company provides service that has been acclaimed as being one of the best in its field" would not be promotional (as long as you have a reliable source to back it up. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 10:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello MorbidEntree. You have rejected my article on Michael Morrow because of the lack of reliable sources. The problem with this subject is that the information that I have written about him does not exist in any printed or online source except for the biography that I have written about John S. Beckett ('John S. Beckett - The Man and the Music'), published last month by the Lilliput Press here in Dublin, Ireland. The account that I have written is based on an interview between me and Michael Morrow's sister Brigid, which took place some years ago. i recorded it and used the material in my book. Anything that I have read in British newspapers about Michael Morrow (stored mostly in a collection at King's College London) mainly deals with the concerts that he organized. A couple of articles about Michael were published in the British magazine 'Early Music', but again they dealt with the music that he was interested in. If you wish, I can list these sources under a 'Further Reading' heading. I would welcome any suggestions that you might have to make the article acceptable. Charlesgannon (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Charlesgannon: If you can't find reliable sources then the subject is not provably notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, sorry. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 11:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Is a hardback 567-page biography with 160 pages of Notes, six Appendices, a Bibliography and an Index not a reliable source? Check out my biography at [1]. Many people regard Michael Morrow's approach to performing early music as revolutionary - it certainly changed the way it was performed - and would agree that he was a very 'notable' person.Charlesgannon (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Charlesgannon: Does the book have an ISBN? --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 11:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes - the ISBN is 9781843516651. Charlesgannon (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Charlesgannon: Alright. You should redo the references using the reference wizard. After you do that then you can resubmit it and notify me on my user talk page and then I can accept it. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 11:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Syncplify (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Syncplify.me Server! ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I see that the Syncplify.me Server! page has been rejected again.

Now... if you look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FTP_server_software You will see that almost all (well, at least 80%) of the software programs listed there have pages with little to no references. The problem in the FTP (File Transfer Protocol) field is not laziness, the problem is that even if you are willing to provide as many references as possible the field itself is so narrow that it's given very little coverage by the media, so there ARE little references in general.

Yet... if you look at this competitor, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cerberus_FTP_Server You will see that, even though it lacks references, it has many "keeps", and for good reasons, like: - Well known product by anyone with relevant technical background. These feverish automatic AfD noms on software are so out of hand. - There are plenty of sources. Check out Tucows, CNet, or Snapfiles

Our software is well-known to everyone with a decent technical background, reviewed on CNet, SoftPedia, and countless other software websites, cited in 2 papers published in 2 journals, and so on...

This other competitor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompleteFTP has ZERO (I mean ZERO) references, and yet their page is on Wikipedia. Should it be deleted? Absolutely NO! Same reason: CompleteFTP is well-known by practically every single technician who works in the FTP field, and removing it would be a form of discrimination and would prevent Wikipedia from offering an objective and comprehensive list of all possible software to accomplish file transfer jobs.

We have provided the same number (or more) of references as our competitors' pages have. I respectfully ask you to, please, reconsider your choice and approve the Syncplify.me Server! article. Thank you.

@Syncplify: I think that removing or replacing the sources that are primary sources should be sufficient. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 12:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I can certainly do that. I have now removed all self-references (except the download page, but I can remove that one too if necessary). Would this be ok for approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syncplify (talk • contribs) 12:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Syncplify: I've done a touch up to the draft and you can now resubmit it. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 12:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Resubmitted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syncplify (talk • contribs) 12:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the approval. We will make sure to improve the article further over time. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syncplify (talk • contribs) 13:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Rlgulliver (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Diamond, Dubai Sports City ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I appreciate you taking the time to look at the submission and also this note. I am keen to understand the best way to get a building to have a page, I see many other skyscrapers have pages, do you have any tips on how to achieve that? Thanks again, I look forward to hearing from you.

@Rlgulliver: The article should use less promotional language and be written in prose. You also have to show why the building is notable. Just saying that other similar buildings have articles is not a reason for this one to have one. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 13:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Ina Matronics (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Matronics ApS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hej there, you have made a review of an article - matronics . It stays that it sounds like an advertisment rather than an neutral article, but in fact all of the links are a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the subject being discussed. So, can you please expalin it to me or have another look at the article ?

Thank you in advanced fo your help and time !

• Chsanford (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Spliceman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, MorbidEntree. Thank you for taking the time to review the Spliceman draft. Do you have any advice on how I can approach improving the draft? You indicated that it reads too much like an essay, but I'm not sure how to go about improving it. Any suggestions would be very helpful! Chsanford (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you had turned down our page creation because you thought it had sounded like an advertisement. Could you please point out which sections you thought sounded that way so I can fix them and then get it approved? I was shocked to see that because I have had 3 other editors look at the page and they all seemed to think it read neutrally. Also I am not quite sure what I would be advertising for, as the Park City mines have been closed since the 70s. Thanks so much for your speedy response. DanielVGarcia (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• 66.63.9.2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The New Groovement ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for taking the time to review the draft of this article. I notice that you indicate that the article requires reference to verifiable independent sources. Given that there are references to several articles from The Times Colonist (the largest newspaper in circulation in Victoria) and Victoria's local television station (Shaw TV), as well as other notable magazines, such as Feedback and BC Musician, I wonder what other sources might be necessary. The band has been nominated for local and regional awards, and receives regular air play on campus and commercial radio. Does this not qualify as "notability?"

Cheers!

I noticed that there is an article for a company which got bought by Upland, does cloud CRM from Dallas, TX. Upland, they are global in terms of revenue and size, how to get sth like this published when most of the articles are business or industry journal references?

they are notable but not like in the NY Times every week,

btw is this how you talk to someone on wiki, just edit their page, sorry not sure

thanks!

I am glad that you have decided to help out at AFC. However, I have noticed some problematic trends in your recent acceptances. First and foremost, there have been two three articles that were put back into the draft space because they were not acceptable. This is because the references weren't substantial. Please make sure to check that the references are good, not just that there are references. As a more minor thing, it's a good idea to make the articles conform to MOS standards; this means if you see an External links section above the References, you should swap it. If there are external links in the body of the text, remove them. I'm certainly not suggesting you fix everything broken on a page, but things like headers and elinks are pretty easy to do.

In summary - AFC is not a race, and despite the backlog it's always a good idea to take your time, actually read through the sources, and make a good decision about whether to accept or decline a draft. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm pinging Dodger67 in case they have anything they would like to add/comment on. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac and Dodger67: I apologise. In hindsight, I should have been a lot more careful in my reviewing. I just need to slow down a bit lot. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 21:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Print a copy of the flowchart at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions to use as a checklist while reviewing. It's particularly useful once you're past the obvious "quick fail" criteria - that's where the process gets slower and requires more thought. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Thank you. I didn't even think of doing that. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 07:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you recently assessed the page The Association of British Columbia Land Surveyors as a start page. I'd appreciate any specific feedback on how to improve it, as I didn't feel it fits into that categorization. Please let me know what needs work, thanks! Specialprojects2016 (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Specialprojects2016

Follow the guidelines on the quality scale and improve it according to that. If you feel a different rating is appropriate, then be bold and change it. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 21:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello MorbidEntree,

Do you intend to accept this draft and move it to main space? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: At the time I reviewed it, no. But it is now my opinion that the article should be accepted and moved (after reviewing it again once I had a good night's sleep). So if you have no objections then I will go ahead and do that. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 21:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please. I would be grateful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello MorbidEntree, I was wondering if you had an opportunity to look at my other post on your talk page? Just so I can get the ball rolling and get my draft accepted as soon as possible. Thanks for your time. DanielVGarcia (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@MorbidEntree: Hi, Thanks for your message. I'm new for wikipedia, I don't know how to create page successfully

Hi MorbidEntry, thanks for your feedback although it was not favourable in the first step.

I did rework the document. I think an initial disturbing issue was that I used lots of bullet points which made it appear rather like a definition than like a valid and balanced Wikipedia entry. Already initially I tried to complement the explaining part with aspects of vision, legal consideration and a global consideration and reflection (all substantiated by notable sources). I now enhanced these, made them more clear and expanded on the subject. I also added an important consideration of controversial aspects written by acclaimed researchers / notable sources.

Could you do me a favour and have a look at it again before I resubmit. Perhaps you have some additional suggetion how this article can be improved? ScienceGuard (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look as soon as I can. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 06:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for reviewing my new article for Trip Republic. Apparently the sources of information I used not do seem trust worthy to you. As they are all from different websites that relate industry news regarding startups or travel industry, I am not sure of what to edit on the article. Could you give me a bit more details please? Thanks for helping me writing my first article on Wikipedia!

Have a great day, regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celianc (talk • contribs) 14:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for taking your time and reviewing my article, I added one more reliable source as of The journal Of Infectious Diseases . Lowenstein is documented as the first person in history to explore Herpes virus is infectious in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NonBiasencyc (talk • contribs) 06:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Fullyvested (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Milton Ezrati ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I'm making a page and it was denied the first time I submitted it for lack of inline citations. I recently resubmitted, what's the estimated time for approval on this page? I'm hoping to get some feedback on what it is I need to do to ensure the page gets approved as quickly as possible. Thanks for your help!

@Fullyvested: I can take another look for you right now. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 22:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi! this is a ((ping)) following my draft for an article. I'd love your help in editing my article for re-submission as it said I don't have enough sources. If an article is on a living person, what are the satisfactory sources proving the person is notable enough? Do you have any advice on how I can improve my article before resubmitting? Thank you so much! oliviajoy Oliviajoy (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Oliviajoy: You should take a look at WP:BLP. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 22:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)