User talk:Northstar2595

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Great Pyramid of Giza, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply;

YOU are the one putting original research on the page, not me, saying that the Great Pyramid base was 440 cubits when not one Giza surveyor has EVER reported that measurement. I DID cite reliable sources. It is the original author and those who persist in reverting to that original state who are putting their own unsupported falsehoods into the page without reliable sources referenced. You have some serious gall putting that notice in my talk box when you should really put it in your own. I suggest they stop or face the consequences!173.212.120.71 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference on the Pyramid of Giza page is " ". When you say it's unreferenced, you're got to be either blind or lying.  The Dilke reference is more recent, and would take into account the Petrie reference, if he's still worth taking into account.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I rather doubt that Dilke's book made Petrie's, Smyth's and JH Cole's disappear. Unless you can do that, I suggest you stop posting outright lies in Wikipedia. Northstar2595 (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Northstar2595 (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend you read this, mate, you're really doing a terrible job with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you use reliable primary sources.Northstar2595 (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia actually prefers secondary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Great Pyramid of Giza, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC) I simply reverted your clear cut vandalism. What's wrong with that, Mr. Unreliable sources?Northstar2595 (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries and references
Try using edit summaries, that way there is less chance of edits being removed as vandalism - which is what your edit looked like to me. You might also want to learn how to enter references correctly. What you have enered may be 100% correct but with no references to support it who's to say one waqy or the other. NtheP (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least you had a valid gripe. I fixed the ref links and some knob changed it again. That person had no excuse whatsoever. That person being one "Ronz".Northstar2595 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Great Pyramid of Giza. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

See you tomorrow.Northstar2595 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If by this statement you mean that you intend to resume edit warring on Great Pyramid of Giza I must warn you that this will lead to you being blocked for a longer period of time. Present your case at Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza instead.  Favonian (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I can't edit that page right now, due to Wikipedia being under the apparent control of the Nazi Party now. Screw you Wikipedia. You're not even worth the effort of attempting to correct glaring errors in your articles. What a bunch of clowns.

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. postdlf (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)