User talk:Qaei/Archive 1

Hi Qaei, thanks for your welcome. I have had this account for a few months, have done a couple of dozens edits and now having a go at first article. I do have some reservations: the article was declined immediately on the grounds the sources were "not independent or reliable". But the sources were Guitar World magazine, South China Morning Post, and similar. I didn't think you could get much more okay than that..? It's a BLP so I get that it is held to higher standards, and rightly so. But I haven't used the person's direct website or any publicity stuff except for in the External links, and followed the guidelines religiously, re "sources that are independent from the subject of the article" and "multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail" (from wiki's own guidelines. The person who declined the article admitted they hadn't read it fully. Is that to be expected? Instant (frankly, pretty rude) rejection of articles? I'm just wondering how wiki ever gets any new editors if the process is that brutal, lol. I have made some changes, e.g. attributing descriptions the reviewer rejected on the grounds they weren't independent, so I put extra links in to their source. Is it usually this unfriendly? lol, but also not lol if you know what I mean. I worked pretty hard on it, and it was declined literally within seconds. Literally. That reviewer can't possibly have read it in the time. Just want to know if that's what this is always like. Thanks for your welcome, it was a relief to see some friendliness after that. :/ Misterdequincey (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing to me Misterdequincey! I have been in your situation when I signed up to Wikipedia, and unfortunately on Wikipedia, the rules are very strict. Personally, I do not and cannot control whether an article can be accepted or denied. One of the first things you can do is write to the person who reviewed your article, which can be found here. If you need further help with creating an article, you should go to the Teahouse, which can be found here. Thanks Qaei     &#9742;  17:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Hello and thanks for the welcome. You are awsome.


 * Thanks Volksliam! I am really grateful.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you accept the edit on Norwich City F.C.
Hello, I was wondering why you accepted 165.225.81.13's edit when both Joseph2302 and I reverted it do to lack of sources? Thanks for your time. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Fedora article
Hi, I see you reverted my changes to the article on fedoras. My changes were correct - the version to which you reverted is incorrect. To explain: the article originally said "By the early 21st century, the fedora became...". This is ungrammatical - it should say either "In the 21st century, the fedora became" (which is what I have changed it to) OR "By the 21st century, the fedora had become...". Thanks for your contribution, but please do not revert my change back as it has corrected a grammatical error.86.170.94.153 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thanks for contacting me! I have reviewed your complaint and your change on the Fedora article, and I can see that the original version was correct in the certain circumstances. I came to this conclusion, as the article mentions the history of the Fedora, and therefore saying 'By the early 21st Century, the fedora became...' would be valid and makes full grammatical sense. Therefore the revision will be reverted. If you have any further issues, feel free to contact me via my personal email, which can be found above. Thanks! Qaei     &#9742;  22:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I tried your email, but I do not have permission to use it. I understand your reasoning, but I'm afraid it is flawed. An ungrammatical sentence cannot be made grammatical by context - it is either ungrammatical or it is not, and the version you favour is ungrammatical. (Trust me - I am not a wikipedia editor, but I have been a professional editor for 17 years). Sorry, but the sentence needs to revert to my correction - the original version is poor English. Regards, 86.170.94.153 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC) I have changed the sentence but used the alternative version, 'had become', which unlike the original is grammatically correct but also perhaps fits the context slightly better than the other correct version. Hopefully you can accept that as a suitable outcome. I've also tidied up the whole paragraph, which to be honest was not well written (and could probably be improved further still).86.170.94.153 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi! I am satisfied that your revised changes are acceptable. Thank you for your contributions! Qaei     &#9742;  00:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)