User talk:الحساوي/Archive 2

Templates
When creating templates, please ensure a) you use correct spelling and formatting for the title and b) you include it in categories. GiantSnowman 08:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Giant...Thank you for the advise!...If something was wrong it is not the end of world! someone can fix!--Silver Master (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it shows incompetence. GiantSnowman 18:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK :)...As you see...PeaceGiant!

References added to Carlo Herrera
Hello, we have added references to the page of the Uitangcoy-Santos House/Museum of the Women of Malolos' Head Curator Carlo Herrera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahaynialberta (talk • contribs) 20:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Bare URLs
Hi Silver Master, thanks for helping out with the backlog of pages at Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations. However, I noticed that you've made many edits which fill in little more than the orignial bare url itself. For example see this diff. I'm writing just to let you know that I've found that this is unfortunately a side-effect of using the reFill tool, which leaves the "publisher=" field empty and omits many other parameters. I personally prefer Reflinks since it fills in the "publisher=" field and provides other fields, which are user editable unlike reFill. This way parameters for language, author etc. as well as publisher can be accurately filled in, as well as tagging dead urls. Without these fields the reference isn't much better than before. Thanks — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 18:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Iambic Pentameter very helpful advice..looks promising tool!S!lVER M. (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting pages about bids
Dear editor,

I am using the English pages about procurement as source for improving this area of knowledge in the Spanish Wikipedia. I have found that Invitation for bid is a stub and says contradictory things with Call for bids, which is a full article and starts: "A call for bids, call for tenders, or invitation to tender (ITT, often called tender for short) is...". I think that Invitation for bid should be left only with a redirection to Call for bids, and this page ought to be changed in a way similar to the following: "A call for bids, invitation for bid, invitation to bid, call for tenders, or invitation to tender (ITT, often called tender for short) is...".

What do you think?

Thank you. Best regards. Alvarosinde (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Alvarosinde..important notice. If there is a "contradictory things" as you said the best solution is to request merge with this Call for bids. But if they are the same in brief we may use the CSD A10 then Create a redirect. I have made a merge tag to consider merge. we may read this also 1 and 2...RegardsS!lVER M. (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Silver Master, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Schwede 66  00:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion motivation ?
Dear editor,

It was with some surprise that I noted your proposal to delete an article, out of the concern "no sources no motability" (sic). When someone has taken the time to create an article I think you should extend them the courtesy of at least getting your spelling correct, when you propose to have their contributions deleted. Further, when you made your proposal the article was not actually without sources. You could take a moment to reflect on that. Best regards. Lklundin (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Lklundin... Regarding this article Peering.cz it doesn't have any sign of notability as the only reference was a Directory site peeringdb.com...The other thing that the page is being monitored and the probose can be canceled after the problem had been fixed...If you want to speak about real deletion motivation you may check this CSD log :)...S!lVER M. (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting pages about bids
Dear editor,

I am using the English pages about procurement as source for improving this area of knowledge in the Spanish Wikipedia. I have found that Invitation for bid is a stub and says contradictory things with Call for bids, which is a full article and starts: "A call for bids, call for tenders, or invitation to tender (ITT, often called tender for short) is...". I think that Invitation for bid should be left only with a redirection to Call for bids, and this page ought to be changed in a way similar to the following: "A call for bids, invitation for bid, invitation to bid, call for tenders, or invitation to tender (ITT, often called tender for short) is...".

What do you think?

Thank you. Best regards. Alvarosinde (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Alvarosinde..important notice. If there is a "contradictory things" as you said the best solution is to request merge with this Call for bids. But if they are the same in brief we may use the CSD A10 then Create a redirect. I have made a merge tag to consider merge. we may read this also 1 and 2...RegardsS!lVER M. (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of autopatrolled right
Hi Silver Master,

I have removed the autopatroled flag from your account as your recent article creations Safety and health training and Data gathering and representation techniques contain both promotional external links and content that is also promotional. You may request this user right again at the appropriate permissions page when you feel it is appropriate to do so. Amortias (T)(C) 20:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfair decision and i am not ok with it...Dispute created! and Requests for mediation--S!lVER M. (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * With the creating of articles like Instabug, I don't think that you should have even been granted the right in the first place. Now, this is not even a dispute. An admin is just trying to tell you that your articles were not up to standard, so he removed your autopatrolled status. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  20:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * RileyBugz In Instabug if one suspects promotion he have the CSD criteria. I gave references and i established notability with it?! Why you did not suspect promotion Mesaieed Holding Company Wuzzuf Vezeeta for this also which i have created them also!

All reviewed before granting the permission of auto review and when they suspect promo on this Edfa3ly a made a tag with a CSD G7 on and deleted!..very confusing misunderstand and this is pivotal direction for me--S!lVER M. (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Instabug this was reviewed by an admin
 * Vezeeta this was reviewed by an admin
 * Wuzzuf this was reviewed by an admin
 * Whew. I removed slightly promotional material on Instabug, Vezeeta, and Wuzzuf. G7 is only applied to articles where an author blanked or requested deletion, so that means that you created it and then either blanked it or requested deletion. Mesaieed Holding Company might not be notable, as the mentions of it seem to be trivial. So yeah... RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  21:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * RileyBugz In Wikipedia there is diplomatic admins that have vision and scale techniques to deal with users fairly but in case of the admin above...He just revoked right, left a message and walk away...He may warn me and monitor my edits for some time or something like this...I am not wondering of this because he have been just promoted like a month ago or something like this!S!lVER M. (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not going to discus such bold actions with admin like this!S!lVER M. (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that he should have warned you first, but I do not think that he should restore your rights now until you have proven that you will create articles without any issues. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  21:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * RileyBugz Even if you are going to block some one you have warn, caution. I have been struggling for a week to block a user doing wrong edit unless his massive contributions 1, 2 with no response and finally got help from another admin #1 Admin and i knew from starting that was no use from talking with him..and after what (I have been threatened with a block and my talk page distorted with it..It was fixed by the right admin..and a my view was right at the end--S!lVER M. (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Two things: I am not an admin. This has nothing to do with the discussion. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  21:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know i am just talking and showing some facts--S!lVER M. (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * RileyBugzNote that the right is not my goal of all this...My goal to prove that the above admin was wrong--S!lVER M. (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal of this right. The removal of autopatrolled just throws your articles back into the queue to be reviewed. It has no impact on your editing. You said the admin should "warn [you] and monitor [your] edits". But that's what removing autopatrolled does. He's warning you that such promotional links are not appropriate on Wikipedia and removing the right so your page creations will be reviewed. Hope that clears things up. As an aside, dispute resolution is for content disputes (not relevant to admin actions), and mediation isn't appropriate for admin actions like this. You could request a review at WP:AN, but the most efficient way to do this would be to request the right again at WP:PERM/AP if you believe you qualify. Based on your recent creations, though, I do not think you're eligible. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13 So the problem is with links not content..Anyway how could i request permission or any other right request...My talk page was ruined by talks like this! ...I want to prove that i am not spammer..This the case!S!lVER M. (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not that we think you're intentionally spamming. It's just that your articles currently need review based on the links you've added. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok..User:BU Rob13...what about the Stigmas in my wiki logs and my talk page, how could i fix this--S!lVER M. (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No-one is likely to hold this user right revocation against you. The best thing you can do is create solid articles, reduce the promotional language and links, and then request the right in a few months once you have a solid body of work to show for it. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13 Anyway thank you for you intervention to this sad accident...I was going to post another articles while this time but unfortunately it was paused and wasted in this irresponsible action!S!lVER M. (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
{{Ivmbox
 * The request for formal mediation concerning Safety and health training, Data gathering and representation techniques, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 00:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)