User talk:Tarook97

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. O1lI0 (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. O1lI0 (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

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. Thank you. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for a long term history of edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

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).

Tarook97 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

To whom it may concerns. My start with serious editing on Wikipedia was only last spring, my lack of knowledge on Wikipedias terms and policies was the main reason for my blocks, especially the first two as I had barely any understanding of policies as basic as 3RR at the time. My edits on Battle of Talas were to add additional cited info and were of good faith, but I understand that I violated 3RR. I'm well informed on Wikipedias guidelines and policies now, and I assure you that I will adhere to them from now on. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I am not convinced that anything will change if you are unblocked. It seems rather convenient that 1 hour and 12 minutes after your account is blocked indefinitely you suddenly profess that you are well informed on edit warring guidelines and are a reformed character. I suggest you come back in a month to see if another admin might be willing to give you another chance. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:19, 27 October 2017 (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.

Why didn't you learn the policies and decide to adhere to them after the first block? Why should we believe that you will behave any differently if you are unblocked now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

At the time, Wikipedia and its policies were all very new to me and my knowledge of anything other than editing, saving an edit, and reverting was very limited in the first month of serious editing. I didn't even know about my first block until it was mentioned by the nominator of my second, as I didn't try to edit during the 36 hours of my first. I have undoubtedly learned my lesson, and will be here to build an encyclopedia. Tarook97 (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

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).

Tarook97 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

To whom it may concerns. Late March of this year was when I started seriously editing on Wikipedia. The community along with its policies and guidelines were all very new to me and I barely had any knowledge of the latter in the first two months of my start with serious edting. I would like a chance to show you that I'm well informed on Wikipedia's polices and guidelines and will adhere to them from now on. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. Tarook97 (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have had *four* previous edit warring blocks, and this is your fifth, so it's way past time for pleading ignorance. I suggest WP:Standard Offer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I shall just add, for the benefit of any future reviewers, a note of the following events from this talk page...

1. Removal of multiple edit warring warnings
2. Removal of edit warring message
3. Removal of several messages, including two relating to edit warring
4. Removal of edit warring warning with the summary "Removed senseless edit warring warning by someone who seems to hold a grudge"
5. Removal of more messages relating to edit warring

This is absolutely not someone who was unaware of edit warring policy, but someone who has quite clearly been contemptuous of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2017 (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.

@Drmies: I want to apologize for the request; definitely naive of me. As a final post, I want to ask you if there is any last thing you'd like to voice regarding this whole thing. A final advice on the unblock request and WP:Standard Offer would be much appreciated too. I'm only asking this because your comment on the SPI meant a lot. Thank you for being a good support through this. Tarook97 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm I don't know if I have much to add. The burden of OFFER is that you stay away, socks and all, for six months, after which administrators can consider another unblock request. It still seems to me that you have something to bring to the table, some useful knowledge, and I hope that you will find a way to address the edit warring and the socking in that request. Thanks again, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear. I want to thank you for this edit regarding the plagiarism in Abbasid Caliphate. At the time of editing the article, I was not aware that citing a source word-by-word was plagiarism and would violate a policy/guideline/MOS, and since you did not link WP:PLAG or any page explaining that, I was confused by your post and did not respond. However, I gather that my lack of understanding of the matter was to blame; therefore I apologize for that.

Regarding the current version, the source states:

The most important feature of the architecture of early Baghdad was the celebrated round city, whose walls encircled the caliph’s official residence and the first great mosque. While it is impossible to cite any direct influence, there were a number of examples of round cities from pre-islamic Persia which may have provided inspiration. Ctesiphon was surrounded by oval ramparts, although this may have reflected the natural growth of the city rather than deliberate planning. Clearer parallels can be found in the Sasanian round cities at Dārābgerd and Fīrūzābād, which like Baghdad had four main gates, in Fārs, and at the very striking Parthian and Sasanian ritual center at Taḵt-e Solaymān in Media.

I find that two changes to the current version are much needed, paraphrasing the current statement from "The round plan reflects pre-Islamic Persian urban design" into something along the lines of "The round design was a crucial architectural element of the early metropolis, which may have been based on the layout of Ctesiphon and several cities in pre-Islamic Persia, however, no proof of direct influence exists", and placing the statement in the body section instead of the image caption. The reasons for that are the following:

• Correct source representation; since the source emphasizes in the beginning that there is no proof of direct influence.
• Neutrality and undue weight regarding placement; since the source makes it clear that this is a disputed theory, and not a fact. WP:STRUCTURE states: "It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false." WP:UNDUE states: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Again, I'm aware of the policy regarding edits on behalf of blocked users, but I find these changes "verifiable" and "productive" as the policy states, therefore I thought I'd inform you. Thanks you. Tarook97 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)