Susannny

Your submission at Articles for creation: E. Scott Sills (Physician) (March 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bluerasberry was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:E. Scott Sills (Physician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:E. Scott Sills (Physician)

Hello, Susannny. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "E. Scott Sills".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Patrick.net article improvements

I replied to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick.net, but wanted to provide more information here.

My personal opinion is that the sources added to the article thus far just barely meet Wikipedia's threshold for establishing notability (as defined at WP:Notability (web) and WP:N) - but, as I am involved in the deletion discussion, I will not be the admin who ultimately determines the weight of the arguments in that discussion - that determination will be made by a non-involved admin after the AfD has ran at least seven days.

Additional third-party sources that provide in-depth coverage of the site (not just trivial mentions made in passing) will only strengthen the "keep" arguments. If you have additional references available, they could be added to the article talk page at talk:Patrick.net for others to review, so they can review those sources for possible further improvements to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: for clarification, in the deletion discussion some editors refer to WP:GNG (general notability guideline), which is the criteria subsection of WP:N ... so basically, if they refer to WP:GNG, it's the same thing as WP:N. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Patrick.net Page Suggestion

Hello, I noticed your page is up for deletion and will very likely result in deletion. I would like to suggest an alternative. If the site is notable, there should be a page about it. However, if someone were to immediately recreate it after a deletion discussion results in its deletion, it could easily be speedy-deleted. If the website is notable, I think the page on Wikipedia should either be userfied as a draft or a clean draft should be created. You would have to use our Articles for Creation process, which allows another more experienced editor to review the article to make sure it would survive a deletion discussion, as well as declare any conflict of interest (including being a user on the site) you may have. When an editor who reviews your AfC draft thinks it's ready, they (not you) would then move it out of draft status. (If the page name is salted, as has been suggested, an administrator would move it out of draft status.)
If the page is deleted, you can still request that the article be recreated as a draft by going here and reading the instructions. (Pages here are never truly deleted. They're hidden from public view, and only administrators can see deleted pages.)
There are limitations. Once the draft isn't a draft anymore, most editors prefer that editors with a conflict of interest stay away from editing an article directly. They instead prefer that "COI" editors use the {{requested edit}} template on the article's talk page. Other editors are ok with a COI editor editing the page as long as they make it known somehow that they do have a COI (perhaps by using the {{connected contributor}} template on the article's talk page) and they comply with Wikipedia's policies, particularly on neutrality.
I will post a comment under my "Delete and salt" not-vote letting others know that I'm okay with userfication.
-- Gestrid (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Gestrid: I think this is an excellent suggestion. Patrick got a little ahead of himself just putting it up there. It wasn't done to thwart the process. He just didn't know. As a little helper, I just want to decompress the situation and give the page a chance. It was presumptuous to submit right off the bat. But there's no ego here. Neither of us have a ton of experience here, is all. We just want to do what's best. If that means "userfying" the page and going through a different channel, you suggested articles of creation, then that's what we need to do. I think there's enough here to be worthy of a Wiki mention. I might be a patnet member, but I tell it like it is. If I thought Patrick was out of his mind, I would tell him. Getting this published is just a matter of regrouping and finding the right path. I truly appreciate you suggestion, and I think it will go a long way toward decompressing possible immanent deletion. Though we just got a "keep," and this is not a patnet person I recognize. I would tell you. I outed TOB (someone to be disregarded in general, btw) and I outed myself. So you have to know I don't pretend to be something I'm not. I just want to identify the best path. That's all. I have no timetable. Whatever it takes. Thank you for your help.Susannny (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Susannny. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick.net.
Message added 17:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've finally replied to your question about userfication. Gestrid (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)