User talk:Tarook97

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at 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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at 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)

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

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? &mdash; 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)

One last thing..
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)

Comment
Hi. 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:

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: 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)
 * 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."