Revision as of 01:16, 16 April 2017 editWalter Görlitz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers294,571 edits Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Quality Objectives. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:12, 16 April 2017 edit undoNfitz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,230 edits →April 2017: WTF ... can someone with some common sense unblock the guy?Next edit → | ||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
{{unblock reviewed|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! ] (]) 21:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)|decline=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 . (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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)}} | {{unblock reviewed|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! ] (]) 21:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)|decline=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 . (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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)}} | ||
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 ], 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. ] (]) 06:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Proposed deletions == | == Proposed deletions == |
Revision as of 06:12, 16 April 2017
This is الحساوي's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives |
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 | 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)
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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
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 | 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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)