User talk:Descartespascal
February 2024
[edit]
Hello, I'm Remsense. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Song dynasty, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your source does not support the claims added to the article at all—it's just a passage about John IV through Andronicus IV trying to fight Ottoman Turks and Bulgarians and such. I've read this Treadgold book, there's barely a mention of China throughout the whole thing. What happened? Remsense诉 07:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- First hello to you
- Hy on page 775 the fiscal revenues in gold of the Byzantine Empire are mentioned : 40 tons of gold equivalent to 800 tons of silver’s meaning the double of China fiscal revenues under the Song ; second the use of golden coins was the most important monetary unit of the period like the dollar today .Descartespascal (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- So, this is a good example of what we call improper synthesis, a form of original research, which not allowed on Wikipedia. I recommend taking a look at the pages I've linked, it explains better than I can: basically, you have taken a passage about the Byzantine revenue in gold written in a Byzantine history book, and have synthesized this with numerous other unstated claims, possibly from other reasonable sources, but you've come up with the synthesis Most sources pointed to the European West as the most wealthy region specially with its use of golden coins who dominated international transactions—which is not close to anything any of your sources actually say, especially the one you've supplied. Claims need to be directly supported by sources, to make a claim like this, a source would need to directly state that the European West was the most wealthy region.
- Even if you did have this, it may even have undue weight in an article about Song China. But it needs to actually be supported by sources before we can even get to that point.
- Cheers, and welcome to Wikipedia. Remsense诉 08:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thank you I appreciate the lessons, while I know a lot of stuff I don’t know all Wikipedia Rules. So here can I talk for example about a comparison without presenting a synthesis also can I mention that gold was the money used for international transactions and linking it to Byzantine money who was the gold standard money of the period.
- Because the Song article does mention Europe and it seems there is a wall of China around the article for any other opinion presented. Descartespascal (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- It would still have to be justified in the context of the passage, as well as its conclusions. In general, it would not be appropriate to have passages of a significant length that focus on the Byzantine Empire in an article about Song China, unless the two are directly interacting. The reverse would also be true.
- Moreover, it still seems that the purpose would be to provide a "counterpoint" to the existing evidence and claims directly made about the Song economy. This seems like "comparing apples and oranges", or implying a scholarly debate where one has not been proven to exist—see also the undue weight page I've linked earlier.
- Unfortunately, we can only state the opinions of scholars—you've accidentally made Warren Treadgold out to have an opinion he does not actually profess. Remsense诉 08:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok 👍🏻 thank will reflect on this and come back to you to learn and present something. Descartespascal (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Best of luck! Have fun. Remsense诉 09:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok 👍🏻 thank will reflect on this and come back to you to learn and present something. Descartespascal (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
March 2024
[edit]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.