Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:02, 13 March 2013

March 2013

Template:Z10

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)

Reliable sources? i had put five sources on it.. and now i have eight sources, even the godamn picture is named Surena, this is a joke, alright, i will read these until my block time expires, but i still wanna talk about the page, i will show all the sources when my block time expires and then you can tell me if it's good enough or not, can we do that? HistoryofIran (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

About sources

Hello and thank you for your message on my talk page. I'll gladly try to help and explain a bit about sources. The important thing about sources is that they have to be reliables (more information here WP:RS). In principle, this means that the person writing the source has to have a certain expertise. For instance, a professor of Italian law writing about Italian law is a good source. The same professor writing about Germany history is not a good source, as that is not his expertise. We also want the source to be published by a reliable publisher, typically a major academic publisher, an academic journal, big publishing houses etc. I had a look a look at the sources you sent

• This one is not suitable for Misplaced Pages because it's just a blog by a mathematician. It may be absolutely right, but a blog by a mathematician is not a reliable source for a history article even if it is right.
• This one is a newspaper. Newspapers can sometime be reliable sources, it depends a bit on the reputation of the paper and on the topic.
• This one is a good source. The publisher is reliable, the author has a PhD and teaches at the university of British Columbia. Saying what this book says, and using it as a source, should be no problem.
• This one is not reliable source, it's just a webpage with no credential.
• This one is not a reliable source. It's from the page of Jona Lendering. Although he is a historian, he does not have a PhD, is not affiliated with any reputable university and he is not an expert on Persian history.
• This one is not a reliable source, there's no identified author.
• This one is also just a blog, not a reliable source.
• This one is from a webpage I don't know but which does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS, and the author doesn't either.
  

In other words, this book is a good source that suits Misplaced Pages's standards, the other sources are not suitable.Jeppiz (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Except that, as far as I can see, the Kaveh Farouk book doesn't actually say what's at issue here, namely that the statue in question represents Surena. If it does, please quote the exact phrase and cite the page. What I can see is only that he has a photograph of the statue on p.128, with a caption that merely describes it as "a Parthian prince", without any reference to Surena anywhere in the context. No mention of the statues and the name of Surena anywhere close to each other, unless I'm missing something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to explain, read this http://en.wikipedia.org/Surena and you can see that he maybe was a prince. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying that because the statues is of a prince, and Surena was ("maybe") a prince, the statue must be of Surena? I'll leave it to you to figure out why that is logically unsound. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Read this : Surena or Suren may refer to either a noble family of Parthia (Persian Empire) also known as the House of Suren, or to a renowned 1st century BC General Surena who was a member of that family. And this : The Surenas or "House of Suren" are one of two Parthian noble families explicitly mentioned by name in sources dateable to the Arsacid period.