Jump to content

User talk:Puttyschool

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. « PuTTYSchOOL 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 « PuTTYSchOOL 13:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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.

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.« PuTTYSchOOL 12:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 « PuTTYSchOOL 13:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry, FisherQueen I assumed so from your comment Which was not related to the current block, I miss understood. CU/BR « PuTTYSchOOL 14:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My POV 2

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:

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 reason:

There was a very strong consensus that you should be blocked for your constant disruption, WP:BATTLEfield behaviour and that you are not here to write an encyclopedia. You are correct that having a different POV in itself is not disruptive, but when you let that POV show in your editing and conduct with other users it puts a whole new twist on things. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 11:47, 13 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.

(Puttyschool has asked me to paste the email(s) here)

Hi Ameliorate! Sorry for wasting your time, but your message "...but when you let that POV show in your editing and conduct with other users it puts a whole new twist on things" has no meaning, can you explain more and give a single example using WP:XX rules Best Regards

In response to your email: WP:NPOV. Your inability to follow that policy has resulted in the disruption that lead to your block; trying to justifying a POV often creates a battlefield. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ameliorate! Please try to give a single example using my edits, I’m always using a NPOV and if trying to justify a Neutral POV creates a battlefield on this site, then it is better to close the Wikipedia site. Wikipedia is not a home land of extremists or minorities, who caused Wikipedia to loose fidelity. it must be a place for NPOV editors only. Can you please put my mail in my talk? Best Regards

[1] ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. « PuTTYSchOOL 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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? « PuTTYSchOOL 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 ! « PuTTYSchOOL 09:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your post:
  1. References 7 and 12 are the same, and this is ok. There's nothing in Wiki against repeating the same source twice at 2 different places.
  2. Reference 8 is from 1998. This does not make it outdated, unless you can provide a more recent and neutral reference that proves that information in reference 8 is no longer valid on the ground.
  3. Reference 9 is from 1993. This does not make it outdated, unless you can provide a more recent and neutral reference that proves that information in reference 8 is no longer valid on the ground. As for the contradiction in information provided by references 9 and 10, both figures should be included with allusion to the appropriate sources.
  4. Reference 10 is from 2004. This does not make it outdated, unless you can provide a more recent and neutral reference that proves that information in reference 10 is no longer valid on the ground.
  5. I agree with you that reference 11 is a weak reference. It does not add much to the argument at any rate.
I hope this helps.--Lanternix (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lanternix is this another method of twisting facts, regarding troy 07 (talk · contribs) edit which is by all means a method of twisting Wikipedia to his point of view, using a trivial method of deceiving the readers.
  1. Reference 7 is a copy from Reference 12 and both are the same atricle, not in two different places, as you wrote, which makes it problematic edit. can't you see the list [6][7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]?
  2. Reference 8, is outdated November 1997, not from the Washington post, as troy wrote while defining the reference, it is an un-reliable source and not every page on web can be used a reference for population, compare it to true reliable up-to-date referances included by the article.
  3. Reference 9 is an outdated 1993 from the New York Times giving a round figure of 17% , while Reference 18 is up-to-date 2008 and also from the New York Times giving a definite figure of 10%.
  4. Reference 10 is an outdated 2004 from the Christian Post giving a round figure of 15% , while Reference 16 is up-to-date 2008 and also from the Christian Post giving a round figure 7.5% to 10%
  5. it is a natural that we must use the up-to-date reference if we have two references from the same news paper or publisher.
  6. troy 07 (talk · contribs) is writing the access data, not the published date, and according to Wikipedia stype of editing, this is another sign of his intention for deceiving the readers.
  7. troy 07 (talk · contribs) intention in removing the “pro-Israeli” source from the article and hiding the nature of the source is another problematic edit.
  8. You agreed with reference 11 from NLG solutions as it contradicts it self, by giving a 6% of the total population, at the same time Troy choice of such reference is an indication about how he did not respect Wikipedia.
  9. According to troy 07 (talk · contribs) Claim I used "LOOKLEX Encyclopedia" (and not in all edits) as it is the only reference that give the number of native Egyptian Christians other than Copts, also it is used by more than 20 articles as a reference about population, at the same time I did not use any of the Arabic or Islamic Reference, as all give a definite percentage of 6. But I never see an article from a news paper talking about a percentage from X to Y, used as a reference except for Egypt articles.
I hope this helps. « PuTTYSchOOL 07:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know I’m checked 3 times for socks, troy 07 (talk · contribs) accused me four times of using socks, why not to check troy 07 (talk · contribs) at least one time, I don’t think his way of using the word “socks” is common. « PuTTYSchOOL 07:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 :) « PuTTYSchOOL 16:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I have protected this page because the blocked user was attacking and provoking another editor. Protection will also prevent others from attacking this editor (who has notified me that could be a problem). I'd like to keep the protection in place for a while until things calm down. Administrators, feel free to review the unblock request, and Puttyschool may email any administrator if they would like any additional remarks to be posted here. Jehochman Talk 15:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User asked my to post the following:

Great Sphinx (talk · contribs) is not puttyschool (talk · contribs)

Please check Great Sphinx (talk · contribs) account, Jayron32 (talk · contribs) blocked him/her indefinite as he/she pasted from my talk page, please revise the case I told Great Sphinx to paste from my talk page when he/she asked my help. I traced his/her contribution, he/she also told Antony AGK (talk · contribs) that he/she pasted from my page. Great Sphinx is not me, and I don’t want him to be blocked cause of me, especially for a new wiki. « PuTTYSchOOL

--dab (𒁳) 15:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for accountability, noting that I was also approached with the same request and I think it is a valid exception to the protection which applies. Orderinchaos 17:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block length

  • where is the ANI discussion? It disappeared from the live page, please post a permanent link to save people time. I don't know what this user was blocked for, but a years' block at first offense seems highly dubious. Either block indefinitely for obvious trolling or vandalism, or block for a couple of days as a slap on the wrist. --dab (𒁳) 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • is this it? Where is the consensus for the year's block? The thing is, I've seen this editor make useful contributions, and if they were out of line in some edit war WP:BLOCK would prescribe a series of escalating blocks to enforce proper behavior, not indefinite bans for first offense (unless of course I am missing a diff so condemning to render further discussion superfluous. Do we have such a diff?) --dab (𒁳) 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire discussion is archived here. Please read it and note especially the remarks by FayssalF. Jehochman Talk 20:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was indef block. For consistency, I "shortened" it to a year and logged at WP:ARBPIA since it seemed closely related. You'll notice that the arbitration decision does not require a series of escalating blocks, unlike other arbitration decisions. Puttyschool was formally notified on Oct 5, and continued the battle afterwards, even in the thread on ANI. Jehochman Talk 20:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA:

1.1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length...

2) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I have copied those sections from the final decision. Jehochman Talk 20:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give a single example from the time I was notified till now? « PuTTYSchOOL 10:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser results

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." [2] Jehochman Talk 07:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know, if our problems are mainly from extremists, biased editors or minorities, who migrates to Wikipedia and will destroy it, then administrators can work together to solve most problems, but when we have near problems from few administrators as well, then we are losing hope to enhance Wikipedia.
Great Sphinx (talk · contribs) contributions are about 40, and are not difficult to trace, great sphinx know about me from Requests for checkuser/Case/Puttyschool not from his/her first edit of the project page. But from the second when he/she even did not know that the test is finished and after 17 min he/she wrote my talk page asking for help, check what I told him/her, and as a newbie, followed exactly what I said.
a) I told him/her to paste from Egyptian Lion talk page and he/she did
b) I told him/her to contact me by mail and he/she did when blocked and I told Jehochman (talk · contribs) when I received the mail remember Jehochman “Wikipedia is d...”
c) I told him/her to paste my comment in article talk page and he/she did.
d) I told him/her to revert troy  07 (talk · contribs) edit while leaving a comment and he/she did.
e) I told him/her to revert troy 07 (talk · contribs) edits to all Egyptians articles that I participated, he/she did not understand
f) I told him/her to trace troy 07 (talk · contribs) contributions and he/she did not understand
Also he/she told Anthøny exactly what he/she did. after requesting Anthøny help for more than 3 times.
Also remember Jehochman (talk · contribs) that I told you to unblock my talk page so that I can use it to revert troy 07 (talk · contribs) edits, and this means that I was planning to use it advice another wiki to do so.
I’m not a newbie and if I want to create a new account, then I’ll use the right way not wrong way, but as I said more than one time, I’m here just for fun and I don’t have a case to support, I only contribute when I found something ‘’’far away’’’ from fact.
I don’t know I’m I wasting my time mainly with a group of troy 07 (talk · contribs) supporters who said the relationship  Possible.
I hope this helps. « PuTTYSchOOL 09:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is for you to let everyone calm down for a while (maybe a week or two), and then if you want to edit again, you can make a forward looking unblock request. Say what articles you want to edit and pledge to use only one account (if that's what you have already been doing, you give up nothing by promising that). I think it would also be a good idea for you to think about how you would avoid conflict in the future and state specifically how you would make changes for the better. Jehochman Talk 10:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was determined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Puttyschool, that the accounts User:Puttyschool and User:Great_Sphinx were not known to be the same person. ("Inconclusive: Great Sphinx, Puttyschool.") Then why the intension for blocking another person cause of me. « PuTTYSchOOL 10:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was determined that it was  Possible that Great Sphinx (talk · contribs) = Puttyschool (talk · contribs). That's two very different shades of meaning there. Anthøny (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand, can you explain more, for me it it was  Possible has no meaning other than the one who wrote it failed in the assume good faith exam but also accepted as an administrator! « PuTTYSchOOL 10:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say it any better than Great Sphinx. There are 80 million Egyptians, and he shows up on one of your exact IPs the day after you stop using it. You do have other IPs, so it seems like you are editing from home and a second location. Out of 80 million people, what are the odds that a totally unrelated and random person would show up at the same workplace, coffee house or library that you used to use, the day after you stop using it, and edit the same topic in the same contentious manner? What are the odds that you would stop using one of your favorite editing locations the day before someone else started using it to edit the same topic in the same contentious manner, if this person was a total stranger to you? Sounds like 80 million to 1 against. Thatcher 11:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another evidence of bias, not only a failure in WP:AGF but another failure in neutral point of view exam, I can’t change IPs, and I have one computer, few time I used a mobile devices to edit, only for follow up or writing small comments on talk pages (All such contributions are in the JDIF article), and I did not use any mobile devices for more than one month. Can’t you check the following few edits and explains to me how I can get time to move from one place to another, One of Great Sphinx edits, One of Puttyschool edits and Another one of Great Sphinx edits as you said, you know you made me feel sick, and now I feel that Wikipedia does not deserve a name of encyclopedia, as long as we have few administrators like you. please don’t write my talk page again, and if you want to enhance Wikipedia, just leave. « PuTTYSchOOL 12:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect my talk page till I request un protection, I sent a mail to Great Sphinx about how he can defend him/her self, and how he/she can face this bias against him/her, till now I did not receive a notification that he/she received the mail, sorry Great Sphinx (talk · contribs), Feel free to call for any kind of support at any time « PuTTYSchOOL 12:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Anthøny (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:AinShamsUnivEmblem.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AinShamsUnivEmblem.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Puttyschool&oldid=1180262391"