User talk:CFA/Archives/2022/March

Draft: Qlone
Hello! Last time we communicated you made a very positive impression of being an honest editor as you kindly apologized and acknowledged I improved enough to show notability. However, instead of accepting it you decided in good faith to resubmit it and it waited three months until I received another feedback from another editor who seems not to be as appreciative to newcomers as you. I again learned and fixed the draft which I now believe is in an excellent shape, both from high value sources and a very neutral point of view. When I reached out in good faith to the other editor he also decided to resubmit for another reviewer to take a look. When I politely asked why not accepting it he replied in a way that implied he thinks that since its a paid editing article, it would be fine to just drag it. So now its again in a state where it might sit for many months and that's why I kindly approach you in good faith. You are the only editor that made me feel there's a human being behind the process and I humbly ask you to consider accepting it and moving it into the article space. Thank you so much for your kind understanding and for making it more humane. JohnMcClaneSr (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello! I understand how it might feel to have an article declined when you feel like everything's fine, and then to have it sit there for months on end without any reviews — trust me, it's happened to me. However, per common policy, I shouldn't review the article again; I should, instead, leave it for another reviewer. This is what I did before, and I understand how it can annoy you, but it is for good reason.


 * I think the article should be go to go, with one definite reliable source and multiple others that do demonstrate notability. It seems that you've also satisfied the most recent reviewer's comments on a non-neutral point of view; but there have still been many other reviewers after me who have said that the article needs more sourcing, which is why I'm going to leave it for another reviewer, to make sure that others agree with the decision.


 * Again, if you need any help, feel free to leave a message — Clear  friend  a  💬  22:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt and honest response, please allow me in good faith to correct you:
 * You mention that you think the article is good to go and that I also satisfied the most recent reviewer's comments which is wonderful for me to hear! but you than add that "...but there have still been many reviewers after me who have said that the aricle needs more sourcing" which is why you leave it for another reviewer. The fact is that no other reviewer after you said that it needs more sourcing. After you resubmitted it, it waited for three months and the only reviewer that commented about it is the most recent one who didn't say anything about more sourcing needed. And since you agree that I even satisfied his comments, there is no need for further wait, right?
 * Please understand that I agree having common policy is important but at the same time I think that having common sense is even more important.
 * Having said that and knowing you are always acting in good faith, may I kindly ask that you reconsider accepting it and moving it to the article space?
 * Thank you so much! JohnMcClaneSr (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)