الحساوي

Talk Page Archiving

Dear Editor,

I noticed that as you archived this talk page you actually deleted a small section that I had written and also a larger one, where you expressed some dissatisfaction regarding changes to your user rights and where you also received some advice on how to obtain user rights. Since a user right typically is awarded as a gesture of trust I think you will qualify quicker for any user right if you try to limit deletions from your talk page to a minimum. Others, such as a reviewer of a user right application, can always find such deletions via the page history and when done this may detract from the impression the applicant makes. All the best. Lklundin (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Lklundin You know that there no something can be deleted.. i appreciate your advice and will fix the problem soon--S!lVER M. (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done recovered again Lklundin S!lVER M. (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so, in the interests of not looking shady! :) RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for refusal to acknowledge legitimate concerns with your contributions, and a stated unwillingness to attempt to resolve these issues. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

الحساوي (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was going to fix my already submitted articles and improve my contributions. You did not give me enough time to handle this issue..please unblock me so i can fix this! S!lVER M. (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the concerns about the quality of your contributions. You fixed some grammar issues and with the same edits introduced new ones. (That's ignoring the issues of wrong, or at best misleading, content and sources that do not say what you cite them for, all in the same article.) I thus have to conclude that your language proficiency is not good enough to improve the English Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Really wonderful folks - indefinitely block an editor with 10-years standing, because suddenly no one can be bothered to fix his grammar. The meaning of most of his content is quite clear, if one chooses to try and read it, rather than give up because it's not in perfect English. I don't see a history of warnings over the last decade. One of the five pillars is that anyone can edit it. Poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome (or are they). Instead of following that guideline, we have admins who should know better, blocking users, based on the essay WP:CIR, which isn't even a guideline. This is most certainly not the philosophy when I first came here. It's particularly concerning given that the competence issues here only surround language, making it pretty easy to fix the text, rather than more difficult bias or expertise issues. Surely if we are to tackle some of the systemic bias we have in the project, we need contributors who perhaps don't speak great English. If the particular issue was their newfound interest in article creation, isn't a better solution, simply a restriction on creating articles, or a requirement to create them in draft, and get someone to edit them first?

Anyway great job folks. A+ for ignoring the basic principles of the project, and instead bringing in your own dubious standards and personal biases! Keep up the good work - and we can chase all the editors away - and then things will run smoother here. Nfitz (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're trying to help Silver Master, You might want to rethink your approach. A topic ban was on the table, but they refused to even acknowledge the problem. Then when the block was issued, after their fist appeal was declined they acted like they didn't care, which it turns out is because they were already evading it. The old saw "when you're already in a hole, stop digging" would seem to apply here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, the good old fashioned blame the victim. Harass the person who speaks or looks different, until they make a mistake, and then drop the anvil on them. But no fear, it will make Wikipedia great again. Nfitz (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is an unfortunate event. However, these articles were not user drafts, but directly in mainspace, created with autoreview rights. When the right was revoked, the editor was asked if he would stop adding new articles to mainspace (and indeed had a history of good previous uncontroversial contributions like in sports articles which could have been resumed, and the ability to create templates). But the request to stop adding articles to main space was declined, resulting in the block (then followed by evasion). Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Action_should_be_taken_regarding_Silver_Master for details. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 03:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I was originally concerned with this block, but, as I am unhappy to say, this was likely the correct decision. I think that this was the correct decision because this editor has shown an unwillingness to work cooperatively. I did share Nfitz' concerns, and I would likely be against this block if the editor actually tried to work with us. But, they were not. They opened not one but two AN's ([1], [2]), and when told to stop, did not. In addition, one can conclude from this statement by the user, "Note that the right [autopatrolled] is not my goal of all this...[ellipses is in original post]My goal to prove that the above admin [Amortias] was wrong." This shows that the editor is just trying to win in an argument, and, as you may know, that is not Wikipedia's purpose. To add to this heap of evidence, there is another thing to add! Silver Master, on his talk page, on the removal of autopatrolled rights, said this: "I am not going to discus such bold actions with admin [Amortias] like this!" This shows that he is totally unwilling to discuss the incident. This shows that this editor cannot work with other editors. Thus, my conclusion, unless this editor is willing to stop creating articles or come to some other reasonable compromise, Silver Master should not be unblocked. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 04:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And maybe a short block is in order. But how does the clear policy on duration of blocks fit here? "incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violation". So a 10-year user with no blocks ever, gets an indefinite for their first one? That is so far off the scale, that's it's embarrassing. And then I see no reason, that the block wasn't removed after the first request. It's not like there's damage to Wikipedia going on here - articles can be quickly deleted. Are we really going to start blocking users for not providing sources in text? My gosh, that's a lot of blocks to hand out. I saw the discussion at AN. It was rude, and unnecessary. It appeared to me that the user was being picked on for having poor English - after 10 years of contributions. This is not the kind of atmosphere we should have around here - all contributions should be valued. A wise man once said that you can't break Wikipedia; all edits can be reversed, fixed or improved later. Wikipedia is allowed to be imperfect. There is no clear line that content that is added must be sourced. There is no clear line that it must be grammatically correct. That someone raised this, and enough people went along with it to the point of indefinitely banning someone is an embarrassment to us all. Nfitz (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Here's a discussion you may find interesting- similar behavioral issue at ANI, very different result. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Broken link User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi?Nfitz (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Indeed, I don't know why it didn't direct to the subheader. Try [3]. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: That worked. Thanks for that - quite interesting. I think the difference might be that there was a lot of concern and care to make sure that there were no cultural insensitivies involved - and I think in this case, we might be into the more Asian view of the block being a huge insult, rather than just a tool to get the user to have more dialogue. Perhaps if we'd found a user who could communicate with Silver_Master in their own language (which I don't know what it is), we could have achieved a similar outcome here. Almost need a list of editors by language, who are willing to step in and dialogue if necessary. Though I fear the bridge may have burned already in this case. Nfitz (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

He's posting from Cairo. So presumably he speaks Arabic. Nfitz (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Are you suggesting that you have the necessary qualifications and time, and would be willing to sponsor him and help with all his contributions? But more importantly, that you could convince him to cooperate? Because the origin of the problem was not a personality clash or prejudicial issues, it was a technical one. I don't think anyone here is happy about the end result, and sermoning the community is unlikely to help, unless there's a clear alternative solution that would work. My impression is that when the privilege was revoked, Silver was no longer receptive to compromises (albeit perhaps only temporarily). The usual procedures were also not followed: Silver was not part of a Wikiproject, the contributions were not userspace drafts, and were autopatrolled while in a bad state. I guess that the mainspace material could have been userfied and reworked with the help of other editors, if he wanted to collaborate with others and said so, when asked if he would stop posting new articles to mainspace. He chose an all-or-nothing solution, at least for now. The first unblock request may have been too hasty and did not provide enough confidence to the reviewing admin. Silver has also asked that his user page be deleted. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 08:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sadly not, with frequently going a week between logging on at times, and not having even touched what I'm working on for weeks - I'm not in that position. I feel that the entire process failed; the best approach after he brought the two issues up, would have been to let sleeping dogs lie, and let them have the opportunity to save face, rather than the rather insulting, and possibly prejudiced, process that followed - after all this is a 10-year editor, and the sanction so far was relatively minor. And then, given the 10-year thing and existing Wikipedia policy on the duratation of blocks, the blocks should have (if necessary - I really don't feel it was at this stage) have been progressive. Starting with a 24-48 hour block. Not starting with unlimited - it's not like the user has created much drama in the last decade. And yes, the result seems to look like we are chasing yet another user away - I'm sure that some are happy to chase away those that don't meet their standards - however the resulting lack of diversity on the project doesn't help us. Nfitz (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

In this situation, I think that a shortened block would be the best. But, I think that if they return with their uncooperative nature, then a block with a length of, say, one month would be in order. If they can't fix it after that, then an indef would be best in order to prevent further disruption—and so we can get on with our editing lives. Also, it might also be best to block indef if they return unwilling to cooperate, but I think (as in hope) that it won't be that bad. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 11:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree, but I fear that we've lost the patient, given the recent IP edit we were all pinged on. Nfitz (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Appeal

@Silver Master: Come back and lodge an appeal- don't do what you said, it would be a really bad idea. C'mon, now! :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

I have proposed for deletion all of your articles except the ones listed in the "Sport" section, and the article Mesaieed Holding Company. The reason given was "Virtually incomprehensible; author does not have the command of English necessary to write coherent articles." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

My user page

Could you please delete my user page i am not going need it Beeblebrox...Huon because i cannot place this {{db-user}}--Silver Master (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I tagged it with U1 and will ask somebody on the IRC to delete it. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you :)--Silver Master (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A reminder

Your block applies to you, the person, not just to this account, so you cannot edit Wikipedia in any way using any other account, or an IP, as you just did with 197.42.70.6, which has now been blocked as well. Using an IP to edit when your account has been blocked is called block evasion, and is not allowed. Please do not do this again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Voluntary protection program

Template:Voluntary protection program has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mduvekot (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Quality Objectives for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Quality Objectives is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quality Objectives until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Alleged resurection

A Salep drink.

@Silver Master: I have seen your message and invitation to write here. What is unfortunate is that you still perceive this as an act of pejudice. I cannot speak for the other involved editors or administrators, but I was raised in a multicultural city, in a multicultural religion, and went to schools where I have made friends of many origins. One of my childhood friends, although born here, is from parents who immigrated here from Egypt in the 70s. Other friends are from Alger, Turkey, Iran, India, China, Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, France, Italy, Greece, Mexico and Equador. I can speak Haitian Creol and it's not my native language (neither is English). Wikipedia is also a multilingual project, and I would be blatantly incompetent if I tried to edit an Arabic Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is admitedly often U.S. centric, but this is improving (and is being edited by people from many countries, obviously, as you know).

To come back to the section name ("alleged resurection" ), this is not following policy, but apparently you would be "resurected". I'm not administrator, and don't consider myself a police. If you manage to improve Wikipedia as you can, I can only wish you good luck, and happy editing. Wikipedia blocks indeed are not technically perfect, violating Wikipedia policies are rarely crimes, and admin decisions only result in technicalities, which usually don't have implications on one's family, real world status, liberty or health. Some blocks have actually been applied with the hope that the editor would take a healthy break. I however still invite you to read WP:BLOCK#Unblocking, WP:EVASION and WP:SOCK#LEGIT (note that if you leave this account permanently blocked, and only use another account, it is not sockpuppetry, but may still be considered as evasion if quickly discovered). Because you mentioned "professional" (I'm not sure in which way you meant it), I'm also adding this link: WP:COIN.

If you read carefully again what happened at the AN case you opened, and the discussions on this talk page, we're not glad that the result was a block, and it would be possible for your account to eventually be unblocked in the future, depending on elapsed time, the description you'll put in a future unblock request, your attitude, your wish to work with others and edit only in ways you can, etc. Many administrators will refuse to consider actions older than a few years to effect future blocks and are more concerned about the immediate situation and needs. If you want to make another unblock request, my suggestion would be to wait a bit and take the time to write an appropriate summary of the reason you should be unblocked, your new goals, etc.

Note that this will be my last message directly to you on this talk page for now, otherwise an admin could eventually decide to revoke your right to edit your own talk page. This would be most unfortunate as it would even prevent any future unblock request you may want to make. Farewell, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 23:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Account leave

"perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you."

Dear all Nfitz, User:PaleoNeonate, RileyBugz, User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi thank you for your tries to unblock me, it is a pleasure for me to find some fellows sharing opposition of my block although it is not required from them.....I have got a new account and i have already made tens of contributions and unfortunately could not communicate with you or edit my previous articles to avoid discovering ...I have decided not to bear in this account and Wikipedia:Clean start...This incident looks not good but i think it was better for fresh and clean log start.....For admins, User:Beeblebrox, User:Huon Note that: some IP addresses and HTTP cookies would not prevent a professional Wikipedian for contributiong...Good bye and i wish to have a good interactions with you all in my new start!--Silver Master (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That was as wrong-headed as many of the things that led to your being indefinitely blocked in the first place. You didn't create just one account but two. I blocked both and reblocked this account as a CheckUser block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wait, you think that it's ok to do stuff like that? Now that you have taken this route, an unblock is totally out of the question. I supported the unblock to see if you would rethink your actions, but you didn't. Obviously, you should remain indeffed. Your only hope is to say that you will stop what lead to the block and, when unblocked, not do what you did last time. Obviously, I was mistaken in my judgement. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, Silver Master has arrived at a fork in the road here. In one direction, the standard offer is now probably the only possible path to an unblock. In the other direction, go nuts evading the block again and again, getting caught again and again, and become a banned pariah. The choice is theirs to make. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful ... we've driven a 10-year editor with a clean record, into this kind of stuff, through prejudice and intolerance. Perhaps we need to rid ourselves of some our our xenophobes, who have no tolerance for people who speak a bit different from them. Nfitz (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nfitz: I invite you to strike the "xenophobe" comment. That was uncalled for. There is a large difference between hating foreigners and blocking someone for editing disruptively and refusing to work cooperatively to improve. Whether or not you agree with the block (I haven't looked close enough to have an opinion), lashing out at other editors and essentially calling them racists is obviously not the answer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'm not sure where you get "hate" or "racist" from xenophobe. It's a fear, dislike, or ignorance, of foreigners, not a hatred of foreigners - at least that's my understanding; now to look at the dictionary to do a reality check. Gosh, X is a short section - don't open that one often. Canadian Oxford says "deep dislike of foreigners". Shorter Oxford simply says "deep antipathy of foreigners". Well, less ignorance in the definition than I thought, but no hatred. (anyone got a good word for "ignorance of foreigners"?) Hopefully that clarifies my comments; if I'd meant hate, I'd have used "racist" or "bigoted". The current block itself isn't terrible, given all that has gone on (though the initial block being indefinite at that point was very excessive - I'm not even sure a block was in order at that point). But I fear that by starting out with such a hardline approach in the first place, we only drive many people to do the very thing that would block them. It's a natural human reaction, for those who are not deeply (perhaps overly) immersed in the arcane wikicracy and precedent that governs here. No one was blocked because some dislike what is foreign to them; but I fear that such belief brought us down the path in the first place. What's next, sanctions for those who use 2 spaces after a period, or Oxford commas? And what about those people who don't spell out numbers less than ten - now that's a source of dislike from me! Nfitz (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz You're implying that there is an inherent bias toward the user based on his ethnicity/nationality. The issue is with his behavior not him as a person or where he is from. As a ten year editor, he should have known what was expected, especially after he was told. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad I'm not aware of any significant behavioural issues over the decade, until they were blocked. My understanding (as I don't have the time right now to dig back into the history) is that he was essentially blocked for poor English, and not doing as he was asked (reducing his addition of new content). A ten year editor should have known that people would have his back, and that we have no policies that restrict editing simply based on language skills - in fact the polices, and even the fundamental principles (the five pillars) are very clear that anyone can edit Wikipedia; that you can't damage Wikipedia, and it's alright to put something in knowing that someone else will have to do some editing later - if anything the pillars encourage you to edit anyway. But instead of perhaps a discussion about find a way to check the language, or find a solution where there wouldn't be long-standing grammatical errors, the user was, on a first offence, blocked indefinitely. And much of the evidence for that came out of his poor English during the discussion. In society criticizing someone's language skills is extremely impolite - heck, one could argue that using his language skills during that debate against him, was a WP:5P4 violation in itself. Especially as what he wrote was quite comprehensible - it's not like he'd not understandable - just not perfect grammatically. Which shouldn't be news, given they've been editing for 10 years now, without this being an issue. Sure, there's one or two things they've written that are incomprehensible. Heck, there's one or two things I've written that are incomprehensible (because I've changed my thought while writing, and not proofed it properly). I'm not implying bias based on ethnicity/nationality - but bias against his non-perfect English (though the two often go hand-in-hand - it's the kind of thing you see in some places, where people with quite understandable, but not perfect, English are not hired, using language as an excuse, when it's quite acceptable - just different). I'm not convinced however that is the case here - I don't think there's any ethnic/nationality biases - but I think there is an overreach on desiring a better quality of English than our policies require. Nfitz (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Wuzzuf for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wuzzuf is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wuzzuf until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Voice of process

The article Voice of process has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

article is content free. appears to be pure hype.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lfstevens (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Voice of process for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Voice of process is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice of process until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Anti military republic.png

The file File:Anti military republic.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned file, no foreseeable use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nigella sativa in Islam

The article Nigella sativa in Islam has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article was created in March 2017 as a repository for spam and pseudoscience, with no constructive edits since. There is a main article on Nigella sativa adequately covering the topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zefr (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Standard offer Request!

Greetings,

1. I think the time is suitable for submitting this request...Thank you for giving this opportunity.
2. I have blocked for socket puberty which was unwise and hasty move of me...
3. I will avoid getting in such issues which made this block by keeping away such clashes with other members. No article will be submitted without a review with other member. I will use this account for doing edits mostly.
4. Please keep in mind, I am a ten years member. I have an empty block log without counting the last block!
5. I have much more to provide to this community other than creating articles such as constructive edits, templates, ordering new articles etc.

Thank you in advance for accepting this!

Dear respected please review this User:BU Rob13, User:GiantSnowman, User:Mattythewhite, User:SoWhy, User:Serial Number 54129, User:PaleoNeonate, User:Nfitz, User:Huon --Silver Master (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Normally at this point someone would copy this over to WP:AN for broader discussion, but I would strongly suggest you try proofreading this before that is done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I am waiting some member to send this to WP:AN! --Silver Master (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed I was going to, until I noticed, as Beeblebrox indicates, that it could do with a polish: your second point I balked at, as it suggests you were the blocking admin! Thanks for the ping, although I'm not sure why? Good luck in any case. I do on a positive note see that you have gone well over the WP:SO limit of six months (April-December?), but on the other hand, I think a checkuser is generally run to establish whetehr any editing under other accounts / IPs has taken place. I'm not accusing you of doing so, just saying that, if that had been the case, then it's better to say so now rather than after they check. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he did go over it and edit it after my comment, and this is actually the “improved” version of the request... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That being the case I’ve gone ahead and added it as written to AN. [4] Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I have closed the request for unblocking via the standard offer as unsuccessful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Khaligi20.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Khaligi20.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Procurement requests listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Procurement requests. Since you had some involvement with the Procurement requests redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:Arabic wiki

Template:Arabic wiki, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Arabic wiki and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:Arabic wiki during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Vezeeta for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vezeeta is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vezeeta until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Light2021 (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

user name change

• Hello @Bbb23:, this user asking here to change his user name, so before accept it I want to confirm if there's any objections as you blocked him since few years? Thanks in advance.--فيصل (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• @فيصل: When I blocked this user, their username was Silver Master. It would appear that they've been renamed at least once since then. I don't remember being asked then, and I'm not sure why I'm being asked now (I also can't read the link you provided to the user's request). If I recall correctly, being blocked doesn't prevent a rename. Putting aside technical issues, I'm not sure that anything prevents a rename, although from a personal perspective, I think there should at least be a limit to the number of times a user can be renamed by request. At some point, it looks like the user is trying to avoid scrutiny for their past conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: thanks for replying. This is just a routine question that we ask the administrator who did the blocking if they have any objections or feedback just in case. Anyway, the most important thing is that the information reached you that the user wants to change his name. Thank you.--فيصل (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@فيصل: Very courteous, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)