Talk:Mohammad Pakpour

present at fallujah operation
i think that fact he was present alongside qassem soleimani in fallujah is an obviously important fact, and Long War Journal IS a RELIABLE SOURCE, so i will add it back in. if anyone objects, try actually talking on the talkpage rather than reverting randomly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:RS. Long War Journal has none of the indicia of being a reliable source, as that term is defined on Wikipedia. I'm going to seek the advice of editors from the Reliable Sources Notice Board. David in DC (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional opinions requested here. David in DC (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Responding to the RSN post. Upon review, this does not appear to be a reliable source. That said, we can look up for other sources that support the section. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I am stating my belief that The Long War Journal does not pass as a reliable source. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:82.112.144.10, please review the comment above, and also another editor's opinion from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard . I think DaltonCastle has a good suggestion above. If the matter is truly notable, we should be able to find it in another source, one that complies with WP:RS. I'll start looking. I hope you will too. David in DC (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I replied the following on the noticeboard but it was archived, maybe before you saw it:"the Long War Journal" is not merely a "blog" or "website", it is an an ACADEMIC PROJECT of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies), a respected Washington DC think-tank. The Wiki page for the project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_War_Journal) itself states: The Long War Journal has been used as a SOURCE by a number of large, mass media organizations. So really, yes, it is a reliable source and can be used to put the info on the Pakpour page.

it is quite clearly reliable source so I am going to put it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the re-insertion of this contested information. Under WP:BRD, it's not sufficient for an editor to assert that he/she is right.  The editor must convince other editors, thereby creating a new consensus. That has not happened.  Please edit in compliance with our rules. The archived Reliable Sources Noticeboard thread does not show a consensus about LWJ being a reliable source either.  I get that this is obvious to you. But, again, that's not enough.  Others must be persuaded. That has not happened. David in DC (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

you've written this, but you haven't bothered to give your own opinion here. and you didn't just remove the contested bit, you removed all the new reliably sourced stuff i added regarded the west iran clashes why don't you try following the rules, so heres a rule for you: IGNORE ALL RULES >If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, IGNORE IT.

OR how about, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BUREAUCRACY! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy

OR MAYBE, USE COMMON SENSE? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means#Use_common_sense

You are coming back to this page and deliberately, for whatever reason, damaging the page rather than accepting my improvements over your obviously incorrect, contrary to common sense assertion that LWJ violates the rules on reliable source. You are not the BUREAUCRACY of Wikipedia, and I am ignoring your damned rules. I will keep reverting my good content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)