User talk:Puttyschool

Just a comment

I agree with FayssalF's proposals, Black Kite, JavierMC, Orderinchaos and Rlevse I don’t care about my account but I care about Wikipedia, and Permanently blocking Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) will enhance Wikipedia too much, At least other editors will forgot about his dirty words, Wikipedia is not a place for drama or propaganda Or promoting a site to increase donates. « PuTTY^SchOOL 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please administrators take action and protect Wikipedia.
I don’t know what Wikipedia will gain other than more more drama and ....... « PuTTY^SchOOL 21:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Need your help

Hey!, I don't know anyone here and I need your help as you seem interested in this article. I need an administrative help because I showed the unreliability of some sources but still this user insisting on his position unreasonably. Thanks for your help Egyptian lion (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi “Egyptian lion”, I wish I can help you, but now I’m blocked, regarding Dbachmann (talk · contribs) case, the source is un-reliable source, also recognized by some Egyptians as Yellow Journalism, but in Wikipedia, we must show all point of views, so I think it is better if you can find a reliable source showing why most Egyptians believes now they are Arabs, but trace our history, we were not Arabs from 7500 years but definitely we were Egyptians.
Another point most article about Egypt or the Middle East in general looks like as if they are talking about another countries, regarding certain points, so try to read the wiki links I posted at your talk page, understand them very well, then try to contribute to make them at least near facts. At least the reader can get something near the fact, point out that I’m saying near the real fact. Cheers « PuTTY^SchOOL 13:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Per discussion located here this account is no longer able to edit. Should you wish to edit again, you may post an unblock request explaining how you plan to help the encyclopedia. I request that any unblock request be discussed before action is taken. Jehochman ^Talk 10:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My POV

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Trying to be fair, our accounts are not blocked indefinitely, but for one year, so please check both of our disruptive edits, mine are rare and not as much as those of Einsteindonut, also I did not use soapboxing, Offensive comments,.... I’m always using NPOV and I’m not supporting a case. They why I must be blocked for the same period as Einsteindonut. Thank you.

Decline reason:

This request is inadequate because the actions or block durations of other users are irrelevant with respect to the validity of your block; see WP:GAB. Also, the tenor of the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Results opposes an unblock of this account. —  Sandstein  22:35, 10 October 2008 (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.

• Oppose unblock. Evidence suggests that this user is promoting an antisemitic point of view and thus would be likely to bring the project into disrepute. A pre-blanking version of this talk page contains some relevant discussion, direct links to the material in question, and this user's response. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FisherQueen, posting a link for a site without knowing it is an anti-Semitic hate site is not an evidence as you said, specially that I apologized for the poor choice when I knew it is a hate site, and the other case, which is showing that a reference is a pro-Israeli, bring the information form its Wikipedian article is also not another evidence, but your comment about me is an evidence that you are not an administrator with WP:NPOV.« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is a discussion in the first section of WP:ANI. Please read that carefully before considering the above unblock request. I recommend not to unblock without discussion in this particular case. Jehochman ^Talk 11:42, 10 October 2008 (U

I reposted the request as I think FisherQueen cancelled it, but if still active, it is okay « PuTTY^SchOOL 13:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what made you think I rejected it; on my screen the active request is still visible when I open this talk page. User:Jehochman asked that we discuss your request before acting on it, so all I've done is participate in the discussion. It will probably be some time before a decision is made. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, FisherQueen I assumed so from your comment Which was not related to the current block, I miss understood. CU/BR « PuTTY^SchOOL 14:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

This block can’t be justified, and it is not a matter of personal like or dislike to be opposed by other users, The reason of block was, disruptive edits, I have one or 2 disruptive edits from the day I’m a Wikipedian, and I was blocked for them form 5 to 8 October, and I don’t have more disruptive edits. About soapboxing and battlefield behavior, I don’t have, please give me a single example if any, having a different POV is not a battlefield behavior as long as I can justify my POV, so please tell me why I’m now blocked, especially my blocking gave a chance for extremists to rolled back all of my neutral edits in the last week, in just a few minutes after blocking, as I showed in my talk page, Thank You

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This block can’t be justified, and it is not a matter of personal like or dislike to be opposed by other users, The reason of block was, disruptive edits, I have one or 2 disruptive edits from the day I’m a Wikipedian, and I was blocked for them form 5 to 8 October, and I don’t have more disruptive edits. About soapboxing and battlefield behavior, I don’t have, please give me a single example if any, having a different POV is not a battlefield behavior as long as I can justify my POV, so please tell me why I’m now blocked, especially my blocking gave a chance for extremists to rolled back all of my neutral edits in the last week, in just a few minutes after blocking, as I showed in my talk page, Thank You |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=This block can’t be justified, and it is not a matter of personal like or dislike to be opposed by other users, The reason of block was, disruptive edits, I have one or 2 disruptive edits from the day I’m a Wikipedian, and I was blocked for them form 5 to 8 October, and I don’t have more disruptive edits. About soapboxing and battlefield behavior, I don’t have, please give me a single example if any, having a different POV is not a battlefield behavior as long as I can justify my POV, so please tell me why I’m now blocked, especially my blocking gave a chance for extremists to rolled back all of my neutral edits in the last week, in just a few minutes after blocking, as I showed in my talk page, Thank You |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=This block can’t be justified, and it is not a matter of personal like or dislike to be opposed by other users, The reason of block was, disruptive edits, I have one or 2 disruptive edits from the day I’m a Wikipedian, and I was blocked for them form 5 to 8 October, and I don’t have more disruptive edits. About soapboxing and battlefield behavior, I don’t have, please give me a single example if any, having a different POV is not a battlefield behavior as long as I can justify my POV, so please tell me why I’m now blocked, especially my blocking gave a chance for extremists to rolled back all of my neutral edits in the last week, in just a few minutes after blocking, as I showed in my talk page, Thank You |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Please I need help

Please Can any administrator, check Troy 07 (talk · contribs) disruptive editing for articles Egypt, Religion in Egypt, Copt and Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and how he reverted my work as he knew that I’m blocked, after I spend more than one week searching for reliable sources to cover this sensitive topic in all article, then after I’m blocked he added a list of un-reliable or outdated references, even inserting them in wrong place, in order to vandalizing all article, please check the discussion at Talk:Egypt and the references he posted specially the names he gave them, and the dates, compare them with my referances, then evaluate my work and his work. I don’t know will Wikipedia remain the home of extremists, and will remain providing wrong inaccurate data forever. « PuTTY^SchOOL 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Enough of your personal attacks. If you want to selectively label people as "extremists", then you don't have a place here. I've dealt with sock puppetry before, and that's enough for me to tell that you're probably using User:Great Sphinx as a sock (account created today). ~ Troy (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding, I’m not using sock, who is User:Great Sphinx, please can any admin verify Troy 07 (talk · contribs) claim, And what you did with my neutral edits as soon as I’m blocked is very questionable, please can any admin verify are Troy edits neutral? « PuTTY^SchOOL 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please grow up and edit responsibly. Troy only reverrted the referenced material you removed. Additions are always welcome but removing referenced material just because you don't ike it will not be tolerated. Thank you. --Lanternix (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very clear that I’m blocked, but regarding Troy 07 (talk · contribs) references you are talking about, here is the summary about his deceiving 5 new references he inserted in Religion in Egypt

1. Reference 7 is a copy from reference 12
2. Reference 8, is outdated November 1997, and not from the Washington post as this layer is writing, and is not a reliable source but with Google add-ons
3. Reference 9 from New York Times is an outdated, Published: March 15, 1993 giving a round figure of 17%, while reference 18 also from the NYT published February 11, 2008, giving a definite figure of 10%
4. Reference 10 from The Christian Post is an outdated Published December 7 2004, giving a round figure of 15%, while reference 16 also from the The Christian Post published July 8, 2008, giving a round figure of from 7.5% to 10%
5. Reference 11 from NLG Solutions, a traveling agent, which can’t be a reliable source, contradicts itself, giving a round figure of 15%, then in population % giving a definite figure of 6%
   We discussed this issue thoroughly from September 26, till October 5, i.e. for 9 days, We analyzed all reference, reference by reference on Egypt talk page
   So what I can say now other than an extremist twisting Wikipedia to his Point of view
   Please can any administrator trace Troy contributions ! « PuTTY^SchOOL 09:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Puppetry

Here they are accusing me as a puppetry for you; I’m The Great Sphinx, "The Father of Fear", from Egypt. I’m new here; don’t know too much and lost in manuals, can you help me? Another question why your comments about Troy 07 references are not in article talk page? What blocks you? I see, he is one of the extremist, this is why he perverting my country. --Great Sphinx (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi User:Great Sphinx, I check your home page, you know you made me laugh, finally the Great Sphinx of Giza spoke and said “Enough is Enough” now we have an Egyptian lion and an Egyptian half loin, half human. I’m also an Egyptian (half Egyptian) holding two nationalities, but I’m proud to say I’m Egyptian, and I can speak Arabic. a) Check Egyptian Lion talk page, press on edit, select all text then press cut then paste contents in your talk page to start learning, I did not used my wiki mail before, but you can contact me via mail I'll start to check it. b) My comments are not on article talk page as I’m blocked but you can paste them there, Troy 07 (talk · contribs) reference either un reliable sources, or outdated contracted by new article from the same newspaper, so nothing is wrong in reverting his edit, but leave a comment to reference the article talk page in the comment section. c) I’m blocked, blocked here means preventing me from editing articles, User:Jehochman blocked me to stop Wikipedian’s dramas, but his claim about me is un-justified, and I’m requesting an un-block to return my neutral points of view edits in all Egyptians articles that I participated in and I'm listing above. d) My first lesson for you is “judge the contents not the contributors”. e) My second lesson you can trace any editor contributions by pressing on the contribs button f)They are accusing me not you, so don’t care. finally Best of luck to you, and happy editing :) « PuTTY^SchOOL 16:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)