User talk:Great Sphinx

Welcome!

Hello, Great Sphinx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Help Desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing!

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ~ Troy (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discontinue your editing. It appears to be disruptive. I would much appreciate that. ~ Troy (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one with disruptive editing, I want to reach one of the responsible persons hear--Great Sphinx (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Religion in Egypt. Thank you. PrinceOfCanada-HG (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptively editing

Hi there. I have received a complaint in private regarding your behaviour, and I'm now asking you firmly to be mindful of how you edit here: I consider your recent edits to be disruptive. In the spirit of assume good faith, I've put this down to relative newness: we all make mistakes when we first join Wikipedia—it's a confusing place, after all!

In particular, I'd like to note that your interactions with the editor Tony have been somewhat unimpressive. If you disagree with the changes that an editor has made, the approach is not to blanket undo his edits (known as "reverting"); rather, you should open discussion on the article's talk page, outlining what you think is incorrect about the edit, and proposing a compromise. (See also: Wikipedia:Discussion; Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.)

If you have any queries, problems, or worries about any aspect of Wikipedia, simply use this link to post me a new message on my user_talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I can; alternatively, you can seek help from an editor via Wikipedia:Highly Active Users. Wikipedia:New contributors' help page and Wikipedia:Tutorial may also be of some use.

However, on my original note: calm down your approach to editing, and be mindful that your opinion is equally as important as every other editor's. When contributing, try and "easy up" a little; it doesn't need to be so serious! Take things slowly, and think every edit through before you click "save." Wikipedia becomes much more fun—and your edits, much more productive—when you do.

Anthøny ✉ 18:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t you read the discussion in Egypt talk page and check who is violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. What is neutral in hiding facts and giving wrong figures --Great Sphinx (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have discussed it before and it was agreed that all of the sources relevant sources may be included by being properly weighted and properly incorporated. Thus, if PuTTy added things like "LOOKLEX Encyclopedia", which is not any more reliable, then there is no reason to simply assume that it's allowed and the additions weren't. That's why we weight the sources. Thus, there's no reason for me to be interested in opening a new discussion with someone who is obviously either a sock- or meat puppet of PuTTy. By calling me an "evil editor" who is "perverting your country" (even though I'm Egyptian myself and everyone here is allowed to contribute fairly), it is my duty to inform you that I will not take part in such bigotry. ~ Troy (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008 (again)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did to Religion in Egypt, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~ Troy (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did to Religion in Egypt, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~ Troy (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This my the last warning not yours. Check talk page of Religion in Egypt, Non of your edits are according to neutral point of view policy, so either cease being disruptive or we can go this way WP:RFC --Great Sphinx (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were being disruptive, as you were already told. Now please stop removing references—it was ALREADY discussed. ~ Troy (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 18:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

No reason for unblocking has been given. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Why I’m blocked, check the article talk page; I put my reason then requested an RFC. They reverted my edit without providing a reason then you blocked me, why me? please check my reason, then decide, you may block them not me. Regards

Decline reason:

You were warned. You continued edit warring. When your block expires, please do not resume the same behavior. — Jehochman ^Talk 19:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

In reply to the off-wiki email sent by this editor, and for the reviewing admin to see - I blocked because it's relatively clear that this editor is here to push an agenda. Three days and less than fifty edits, and he/she plunges directly into the POV jungle of this mess you see above. The third edit summary called someone else an "evil editor". Personally, I think the 48-hour block is being lenient. Tan | 39 18:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting my country is not pushing an agenda; in Egypt we call it Nationalism, Can you please check my reason for reverting the article, evaluate each reference, first. True encyclopedias must verify reference, else delete our entire article from your encyclopedia, we don’t want them --Great Sphinx (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, the mail I sent holds exactly the above reason message. --Great Sphinx (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia we call nationalism a POV and try to avoid it. Please make sure you are following the neutral point of view policy and do not edit war. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will follow a neutral point of view while evaluating my reason. --Great Sphinx (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing unblock template

Your unblock has been reviewed and declined by two uninvolved administrators. Please do not post another unblock request, or else this page may be protected. You were warned about disruptive editing by User:AGK who signs as Anth0ny. See his note above. Jehochman ^Talk 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please check what Anth0ny told me "Sorry; as an administrator, I intervene only in matters of editor conduct, and not in matters of editorial content. Disagreements over editorial content (the actual content of Wikipedia's articles) must be settled via discussion—and, if necessary, dispute resolution—between the involved parties. Anthøny ✉ 20:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)" and that what I did exactly, please un-block me --Great Sphinx (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly reverted a page to your preferred version. See Wikipedia:Edit warring. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not my preferred version; it is the nearest version that can represent us, a neutral version. The same statement is also true for Troy 07, but on the opposite he was returning his version, I was returning a neutral version; we have all references in hand; will not take time to evaluate --Great Sphinx (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected this page per your email to me. Please don't request unblocking again. You only get so many chances. Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinately.

Because you are clearly User:Puttyschool and this account was used to edit while your prior account was blocked, I have indefinately blocked this account. See [1] and [2] which shows clearly that the two accounts have used largely identical text in two different talk page postings. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the...., I say if someone declined my unblock request; just in 3 minutes, without giving me a change to write a reason, then blocked me indifferently without a reason, what is it considered on this site? --Great Sphinx (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser has said they are unrelated, although the possibility of meatpuppetry obviously exists. I think this block should be reviewed on the basis that the user recognises that any further behaviour of this kind will result in its reinstatement. Also, while everyone has a POV, we are obliged to edit neutrally in line with the encyclopaedia's standards and POV battles should be solved through mediation, not edit warring. Orderinchaos 06:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher has recently updated the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Puttyschool results to call the relationship

Possible and said, "if they are not the same person they likely know each other and are coordinating their edits. This would certainly be a reasonable time to apply the duck test." [3] Jehochman ^Talk 07:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putty school told me to paste from the talk page when I asked for help, also I told Anthøny. Check the GNU Free Documentation License details; nothing is wrong with cut and paste. I’m not coordinating my edits, I pasted from one page to another. Go and apply; or even eat your duck; I’m Great Sphinx not Putty school. --Great Sphinx (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me; the period expired, the above reasons are not more than jokes. --Great Sphinx (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me; the period expired, the above reasons are not more than jokes.

Decline reason:

Actually, those reasons look pretty good to me. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Actually, from your decline reason which looks pretty good to your, it means a personal point of view. Please make sure you are following the neutral point of view policy. Cheers. --Great Sphinx (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me; the period expired. No single evidence that I’m putty school, all what I can find on this talk page is according to personal points of views.

Decline reason:

Obvious sock. Your contributions are proof enough. — Sandstein 18:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

On what evidence you are talking about? I declared why I joined also I declared that I pasted from putty school talk page. --Great Sphinx (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any admin that responds to this. Please see: this edit by Puttyschool and this edit by Great Sphinx You are free to arive at your own conclusions about this situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any admin that responds to this. Please see: User_talk:Puttyschool#Checkuser_results You are free to arive at your own conclusions about this situation. --Great Sphinx (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted, per the link to the arbcom decision at WP:MEAT, it is generally considered that accounts created to commit edits on behalf of a blocked user are to be treated exactly the same way whether it is one person or two different people at the keyboard. The compelling evidence is that two accounts issued the same edits; the second account is being used to edit for the first account while it is blocked. It is not ultimately important whether this was done by puttyschool or because he requested it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by sock? I don’t understand, I joined to find an administrator to fix our articles, not to write! I requested from Anth0ny, Anth0ny told me I have to do so by myself. Then I followed what putty school told me. That is all what I did? If I have experience I will never be blocked ! --Great Sphinx (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me: my contributions are strong proof that I’m not putty school

Decline reason:

2 checkusers now say you are, including me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It is impossible, I'm not putty school --Great Sphinx (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC) You say and evaluate my unblock reason; what a strange site. I'm not putty school --Great Sphinx (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock| I’m not putty school, come here and see me. I’m not putty school and I will not repeat myself forever on this site}}

No. You won't. This is a sufficient number of unblock requests. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two checkusers have said so, and they are ones I have always found trustworthy and reliable in the past - I can't help any further. Orderinchaos 04:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

you say two checkusers have checked me, but how can that be right if they check over 80 millions? I'm not putty school, putty school was just giving me advice, and say that i shouldn't be blocked for him.

Decline reason:

There is no real point in arguing with reality. You have been blocked by compelling checkuser evidence, and argument will not change that. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.