User talk:AhmedGamal

hey bro please Contact me on Instagram to discuss this topic @A72s1_

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing New Kingdom of Egypt for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You still have access to the article talk page to get consensus for your changes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 5 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I would like one of the specialized reviewers to look into this matter. It started when I modified the map and added another one. One of the reviewers asked me to add sources and I did that and my modification remained for a week, but then a person appeared who did not know the meaning of the discussion and deleted my modification without providing a clear reason at the end. I accepted the fait accompli and accepted the deletion of my amendment and my injustice, but I realized that the description of the old amendment and the sources that I had put before are still present, so I deleted them because they do not belong to the current amendment, but rather a previous amendment.After that, I was surprised by this unjust decision, which prevented me from making any contributions to this page.

Ahmed88z (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not adequately address your edit warring; you still have access to other areas of the encyclopedia and the talk page of the article you are blocked from, please obtain consensus for your proposed changes there. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2021 (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.

You did not give a logical response. If you do not want to edit me, you must delete it completely and not part of it. You deleted the map without deleting the description and the sources that were related to the scanned map. --Ahmed88z (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behavior [WP:TPO]

See WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page", as you did with this diff. Discuss the problem you have with New Kingdom of Egypt on that article's talk page not on my talk page. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahmed88z! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at New Kingdom of Egypt that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at Italian invasion of Egypt

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have tried to discuss with one of them and I did not find any response, although the subject is not negotiable, and everyone knows that Italy's victory in this war was not decisive, as the British forces excelled in the end, but he does not want to admit that and he retrieves the amendment--Ahmed88z (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Cinderella157[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ahmed88z reported by User:Cinderella157 (Result: ). Thank you. —Cinderella157 (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Stifle

Hello, AhmedGamal. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 08:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stifle (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for the Arab-Israeli dispute area

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Also,

500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC) 3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.[reply]

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Do you want me to do 500 edits so that I can edit major topics?

Absolutely not. We want new editors to do 500 normal edits so that they learn how to edit properly. At times we "reset" the 500 if we think an editor is trying to game the system. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do I meet the conditions? What do you think of my performance? Ahmed88z (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Qwerfjkl talk 21:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Ahmed88z (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @Cyberbot I: I assumed no one wanted to delete it --Ahmed88z (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Amr F.Nagy in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. If you cannot provide a translation, please go to the list of Wikipedias, look in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and edit there instead of here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kerma culture into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Ancient Egyptian race controversy, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What "!! have already remove the word Caucasian What you want now*!

Ahmed88z (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe claim that Seti I was "Caucasian "

See Caucasian race. Doug Weller talk 19:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK--all this "Caucasian" stuff (see above), the ongoing futile and improperly sourced attempts at changing history on Talk:Yom Kippur War, the original and outdated research related to this map, and even the user name--enough already. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I do not understand the reason. You did not even explain the reason why I was banned from editing. The subject of the map I discussed with one of the editors, and the matter is over. The issue of Caucasian race has already been clarified to me. As for the subject of the Yom Kippur War, I have not reached an agreement so far. Justification for banning me, this is a clear injustice!! Ahmed88z (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You may not have reached an agreement, but everyone else has. You're not banned; you're blocked. I am listing a number of the disruptions you are/were engaged in; I could have made a longer list, and included the socking, the edit warring, etc. In the end, it adds up to you not being a net positive, and to a large extent not having the competence to edit Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me what mistakes I made in detail, because every mistake I made, I correct it as soon as I know that it was a mistake Ahmed88z (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one has reached an agreement yet. Review the editors' requests to amend the page and you will find that no final agreement has been reached so far. Please give me a list of my mistakes to prove the credibility of the decision Ahmed88z (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to my message, I want to prove my innocence and I want to go back to editing in Wiki Ahmed88z (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I created several articles that were not on Wikipedia, and I was always working on developing articles and adding links to articles to help the reader. If I made a mistake, I would correct it immediately as soon as I knew that it was a mistake.I am very sorry that I will not request to amend the Yom Kippur war page, even though it is a valid request. Ahmed88z (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not convince me you understand what you were doing wrong. Yamla (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2021 (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.

@Yamla: I swear to God I don't know what's wrong Please tell what's wrong I asked the one who blocked me to give me a list of my mistakes and he didn't reply. I swear to God, if he gives me a list of my mistakes, I'll admit I'm wrong and I understand--Ahmed88z (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I swear to God I don't know what's wrong Please tell what's wrong I asked the one who blocked me to give me a list of my mistakes and he didn't reply. I swear to God, if he gives me a list of my mistakes, I'll admit I'm wrong and I understand Ahmed88z (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked four times. If you don't understand what you did wrong by now, I doubt you ever will, as contrite as you have been.

I should also advise you that if you make another unblock request, if it is not radically different from the ones you have already made begging to know what you did wrong, I would recommend to any admin reviewing it that it not only be declined as a matter of course but that your access to this page be revoked. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

First I will explain why I was banned every time and the reasons I see

The first time it was done because I was retrieving my edit and this is a mistake I made when I was a beginner so I admit it and admit that I deserved to be banned for the first time

As for the second time, the ban was from a specific page, and it was not a comprehensive ban, according to what I remember

The third time, I don't really know the reason, and then I demanded to know the reason for my ban

What should I say?  I want to say that I made a mistake and admit my mistake, but I am still a beginner and the novice learns from the mistake this last time, and I will not make a mistake again, and I will not ask to amend the Yom Kippur war page at all, and I will never make controversial amendments this last time. Believe me

I have contributed to Wikipedia a lot and created several articles. I have also contributed to adding links to articles to help the reader, and this is proof that I am here to build the encyclopedia already

I made a mistake because I'm a beginner and that's normal

I admit my mistake and admit it, and I hope that you will allow me to come back, and this will be the last time.

Please pardon me and allow me to return to Wikipedia I made a mistake because I'm a beginner and that's normal I admit my mistake and admit it and I hope they will allow me to come back and it will be the last time. And if I make a mistake again, you have the full right to ban me permanently and I will never object Ahmed88z (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked, not banned. There is a difference. For whatever reason, you are unable to tell us what your mistakes have been or otherwise cannot demonstrate your understanding of them. I think you mean well, but I see no benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking you. I am declining your request and removing access to this page. Please use this time to develop the skills and understanding required to participate here. You will need to make further appeals at WP:UTRS, but I recommend that you wait at least 6 months. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2021 (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.

Deepfriedokra, 331dot, I suppose we'll see if this editor can edit in a way that respects WP:RS and Wikipedia:Consensus. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11 § The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle until a consensus is reached. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 17:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]