| Revision as of 23:54, 9 March 2013 editBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,259 edits →March 2013: re Jeppiz← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:17, 10 March 2013 edit undoJeppiz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,029 edits →March 2013Next edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :It's very simple. Everybody who reverts three times or more during 24 hours get blocked. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. There are a three things you need to understand. The first is that Misplaced Pages isn't about the ], what you know does not matter. The second is that we report what reliable sources say. Not all sources are reliable, you can read more about reliable sources at ]. The third is that we '''never''' are allowed to revert over and over again, not you, not I nor anyone else.] (]) 23:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC) | :It's very simple. Everybody who reverts three times or more during 24 hours get blocked. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. There are a three things you need to understand. The first is that Misplaced Pages isn't about the ], what you know does not matter. The second is that we report what reliable sources say. Not all sources are reliable, you can read more about reliable sources at ]. The third is that we '''never''' are allowed to revert over and over again, not you, not I nor anyone else.] (]) 23:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::It's actually not quite that simple. If you're referring to ], the rule is more than three, not three or more. In addition, not everyone who breaches 3RR is blocked, even when reported.--] (]) 23:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC) | ::It's actually not quite that simple. If you're referring to ], the rule is more than three, not three or more. In addition, not everyone who breaches 3RR is blocked, even when reported.--] (]) 23:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::I know. Both this user is very new so I thought I'd give these points as a general rule of thumb. I recently reverted very obvious vandalism about 5-6 times in less than an hour, and of course ] doesn't apply in such cases. Still, for a new user who may not know the rules, I think the three points I think following the three points I gave is a good way to avoid blocks for edit warring and/or disruptive editing.] (]) 00:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:17, 10 March 2013
March 2013
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
HistoryofIran (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Why the hell i am blocked? what have i done? i have only added sources and improved a wikipedia page with a picture and many more things? maybe you should read the Surena page.. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
For my reasoning, see my post below that you have already deleted. See also the full 3RR report: Misplaced Pages:AN3#User:HistoryofIran reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked for 72 hours). The 3RR report included a diff from a different article in which you changed a word that was included in several direct quotes, thus falsifying the references. I guess that you don't care about references, since you already know that you are correct about everything. Perhaps you should be working on your own personal web site instead of Misplaced Pages. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2013 (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.
HistoryofIran (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Alright, i am sorry if i was a little rude, but i have just found something out, i have even found out more sources that works for the rules you showed me, these are extra sources that show that this is the statue of Surena, and here are the three extra sources http://tonbak.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/surena-the-ancient-persian-general/ http://www.iran-daily.com/1391/4/8/MainPaper/4267/Page/6/Index.htm http://books.google.dk/books?id=p7kltwf9yrwC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=general+surena&source=bl&ots=1CGspHhxcB&sig=eV5nFa2TIvgC0vpl88lkxLyRni4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7aA7UbmgE5GLswb7uYGYCg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=general%20surena&f=false HistoryofIran (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for edit warring; you'll need to address that in your block request. --jpgordon 21:13, 9 March 2013 (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.
What do you mean? can you please show a link to the block request? ain't i already doing that?
- Sorry, that was a typo; I meant "you'll need to address that in your unblock request." --jpgordon 21:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but what do you mean? haven't i already done that? can you show a link or help me?
- History of Iran: I think you should read the rules about edit warring, and in particular note that you are not allowed to edit war (revert back and forth), even if you think you are right. I think you have to show the administrators that you understand this rule, and will abide with it. Once an edit conflict is established, it should be solved at the talk page. Regarding the conflict; it appears to me that this may be a conflict between popular history and more scholarly history, where your sources are seen as not to be scholarly enough. You may argue about this on the talk page, but please also take into consideration what the other part is saying. I think you should take a little time to consider some of the rules here in more details and then come back again. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I was already talking about it with the guy in the talk page, but then i suddenly get blocked, can you tell me why i am the one that got blocked and not him? because i reported him too. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's very simple. Everybody who reverts three times or more during 24 hours get blocked. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. There are a three things you need to understand. The first is that Misplaced Pages isn't about the WP:TRUTH, what you know does not matter. The second is that we report what reliable sources say. Not all sources are reliable, you can read more about reliable sources at WP:RS. The third is that we never are allowed to revert over and over again, not you, not I nor anyone else.Jeppiz (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's actually not quite that simple. If you're referring to WP:3RR, the rule is more than three, not three or more. In addition, not everyone who breaches 3RR is blocked, even when reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I know. Both this user is very new so I thought I'd give these points as a general rule of thumb. I recently reverted very obvious vandalism about 5-6 times in less than an hour, and of course WP:3RR doesn't apply in such cases. Still, for a new user who may not know the rules, I think the three points I think following the three points I gave is a good way to avoid blocks for edit warring and/or disruptive editing.Jeppiz (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's actually not quite that simple. If you're referring to WP:3RR, the rule is more than three, not three or more. In addition, not everyone who breaches 3RR is blocked, even when reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)