User talk:BarakHussan

April 2023

Hello, I'm Rsk6400. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Revolution of Dignity have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Please take a good look at what WP:RS are. They are the only sources we use here. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

promotional? that doesn't make sense on what I said BarakHussan (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SOAPBOX: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. You were promoting the narrative that the Revolution of Dignity was a coup, a narrative that is overwhelmingly rejected by reliable sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Past articles by reliable sources say otherwise, tho, I get you are a pro ukraine person, but you cannot change facts: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-the-mainstream-misse_b_5063302 https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/03/26/after-kiev-coup-the-west-will-focus-on-moscow-a33351 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-22/ukraine-president-viktor-yanukovych-leaves-kiev-reports/5277588 https://www.kontext-tv.de/en/broadcasts/most-blatant-coup-history-mankind-and-its-aftermath-solution-ukraine-crisis-sight https://sundayguardianlive.com/news/5913-2014-ukraine-coup-behind-anti-hillary-dnc-email-hack https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/02/23/coup-in-kiev/ BarakHussan (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, you really should take a good look at WP:RS, but also at WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:FRINGE. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Prolog (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Russo-Ukrainian war. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please note that only extended-confirmed users are allowed to make edits related to the Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:GS/RUSUKR). This also applies to participation in requested moves. Prolog (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Do not speculate without sources, especially about the t-84. You had no source to prove that the tanks were destroyed or out of service, you cannot use a single tweet that does not even confirm it was a t-84, from a pro-russian twitter account to determine that all t-84s are withdrawn or destroyed. Further violations and I will have to report you to the Wiki admins...as this is not your first time doing this...at all. MarkusDorazio (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to 2023 Nashville school shooting. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: the Deletion log says you revdelled BarakHussan's two edits due to RD2: Serious BLP violations: deadnaming [1][2]. I didn't see BarakHussan's two edits before they were deleted, but if it was due to deadnaming as the Deletion log says, I just want to note that there's RfC consensus to include the subject's birth name in the article (and the subject's birth name has been included in the article for a while now). Some1 (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention Some1. I was unaware and can unredact those edits now. There was no other issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to M1 Abrams. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. This seems to be a persistent issue, quite strange since you apparently seem to understand how using references is meant to work based on your removal of content on T-90. TylerBurden (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which edit? if "According to Forbes there are at least 3 M1A1SA destroyed, leaving 28 M1A1SAs." I used WP:Forbes BarakHussan (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(although video footage of more M1A1SAs exist but are yet to be reported on) Where is this bit in your cited source? Because from what I can see, it's your own WP:OR. TylerBurden (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok I see that, I found some sources but they're WP:GUNREL BarakHussan (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thats why I didn't source them BarakHussan (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

although I will be looking through more sources to find one reliable to update the abrams BarakHussan (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, you are not allowed to make edits related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Prolog (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that apply only to specifically the pages under WP:GS/RUSUKR or every single page that is connected to the war? BarakHussan (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions apply to all pages and edits related to the war. Prolog (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you BarakHussan (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you think Wikipedia is like Twitter, but remarks like "heavy cope there my guy" has no place on talk pages, it's WP:NOTFORUM levels of immaturity.

1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.

If that's how you're using your right to post "constructive comments" there are probably going to be problems. TylerBurden (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

k boss BarakHussan (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not helped by contributions to talk pages like this, try to read WP:DUE and understand how Wikipedia articles and neutrality works, boss. TylerBurden (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

k BarakHussan (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 12:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating administrative rulings after repeated warnings, as you did at Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been repeatedly warned about the community sanctions in place that disallow you from making edits to the Russian-Ukraine war topic. You have also repeatedly been warned about using unreliable sources, and against speculation. Despite repeated warnings and having indicated that you understood those warnings, you are continuing to persist in this behavior. As such, you're being blocked from editing -- for 1 week this time, but the next time you violate the administrative rulings in this topic area, it will be indefinite. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]