User talk:BarcrMac

BLP editing

 * Despite the above saying that this does not imply any issues with your contributions, you, on Talk:Linda Sarsour, attributed a statement to her that she never made and the sources you cited do not support. Please do not make up quotes in the future. Thank you.  nableezy  - 15:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Nableezy, sorry I mixed up "Zionism" with "Judaism" (I explained on the article's talk page that I did this because the Start article's title said "The leaders of the American Women’s March have spoken: Jews are unwelcome on the feminist left"). Instead of accusing me of "making up quotes", why not just correct me if I misrepresent or misquote a particular word? Barca (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You put in quotation marks something she has never said, and then followed that with "according to Sarsour". How else would I describe attributing a made up quote to somebody? You misread? Ok, thats fine, just be more careful when attributing quotes to people.  nableezy  - 16:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

June 2019
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. M h hossein  talk 10:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "what they're actually saying is that your bludgeoning has become hysterical — not that you're necessarily a hysterical person". Barca (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Clearly, it isn't the most civil thing to say..."[same diff]. -- M h hossein   talk 05:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it isn't the most civil thing to say. But I don't know how you went from that to an "attack" against you. My comment was on your editing pattern, not on you (as El_C said). Barca (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Personal attack is not the only thing editors should avoid. Civility matters and it's a great improvement you admit your comment was not, let's say, "the most civil thing to say". Regards, -- M h hossein   talk 12:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that civility matters, as I'm hoping you've become aware that your bludgeoning of the talk page was not helpful. Regards. Barca (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's actually the reverse. The other parties were bludgeoning the process. -- M h hossein   talk 14:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You were bludgeoning the process, this is why I mentioned you, which was not a personal attack or uncivil or anything else except a comment on your method of participation. Please learn to work with others Barca (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Four of Diamonds
Hey! I noticed you just added a message of support for the move of Four of Diamonds, but I think you placed it on the wrong section. Just thought you should know in case you want to move it! – DarkGlow (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

MEK is under 'consensus required' restriction
Hey, your edit is a breach of the recent restriction of the page made by El C after users agreed upon it. Please be careful for next edits. Thanks. -- M h hossein   talk 13:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This edit is another violation of the restriction. Please preform a self revert or there should be an admin action. You had to gain consensus before restoring an already removed material. -- M h hossein   talk 14:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

A guess
Hello! Was this a result of your cat stepping on the keyboard?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Heads up
Hi Barca, Thanks for your edits on the MEK page recently, they have been very helpful as that article has been under a lot of problematic editing lately. Just wanted to give you a heads-up to paraphrase and quote from sources as much as possible to avoid any copy-vio issues. Thanks again.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Stefka, yes I noticed this was an issue. Will you fix and add the copy righted material that has been removed? There is also a discussion about a New York Times source you added, would be good to have your thoughts. Barca (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Barca: I'm going to take a break from editing the MEK page, will also avoid participating in its talk page discussions. I'm disappointed on how things are being handled in some of these pages (see this for instance), and feel my efforts have become futile there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

AfD
We welcome participation in AfD discussions but users should only use policy based arguments. Please see WP:AADD for more information and advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring on an IRANPOL article. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. El_C 05:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's chat
Hello. It appears we have disagreements on what to include in this article. I think at the end of the day, both of us will have to forget about some of the things we want to see in the article while keeping some other items included in the article. Therefore, I suggest we come up with a list of the items that we want to be included or removed and find a middle ground before conducting the actual edit. To show good faith I restored the version of the article you originally edited back in December 9th.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Kazemita1, if you have good faith, you should not be reverting your edits back into the article, , which in your edit summaries you said that I had agreed to those changes, but this is not true. Barca (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is your last edit on December 9th, right before the edit warring started, in which you consented to the addition of the following statements:


 * " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".
 * " shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and cult-like attributes."

Please, note that you did not edit the article any further for two days after that and one would naturally think this is a sign of consent. Two days later, on Dec. 11th when me, Ypatch and Emilcioran were all blocked and could not comment on any of your edits you deleted the above mentioned statements. You are now trying to present the facts as if I cheated. To show you further evidence, here is Emilcioran's edit and Ypatche's edit -who even though were opposing my edit- all included the above mentioned statements. In other words I am trying to say there is consensus on the version of the article I restored after recovery from block. And finally this is the diff between my edit right after recovery from block and your last edit on Dec. 9th that shows they are the same word for word. Of course, you knew all of that.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring in an IRANPOL article, again. Note that a lengthy, if not indefinite, article ban is likely due with the next violation. You were asked to engage the discussion first, which you failed to do. Your impatience has consequences. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. El_C 17:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Your appeal is moot because this block has expired. MER-C 08:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's Chat 2
I am asking you -for the second time - to think over my proposal. Let's list the things we want to be added/removed from the article. As a starting point I am asking you and to both revert your edits for which you both were blocked. (I mean after your block is over). To expedite the matter you may express your opinion here in your talk page.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein was not blocked. That's because they actually made an effort to substantiate on the content front, albeit rather too briefly for my liking. And because BarcrMac is now blocked, they can't really collaborate with you on the article on-wiki, using their user talk page as a proxy. Their usage of their talk page has to be limited to an unblock request only. El_C 02:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maryam Rajavi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NCRI ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Maryam_Rajavi check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Maryam_Rajavi?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting help
Hi greetings,

I have been looking for update and expansion support for 2 following articles in draft namespace


 * Draft:Aurat (word) (article to cover grammar and linguistic part)

and


 * Draft:Aurat (article to cover cultural women)

Please do have a look at the article, do update, expand, correct inaccuracies, suggest and discuss better article titles

Looking forward to your kind support.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban from the MEK

 * I've made the need to be careful with sources abundantly clear, but your latest post is still playing fast and loose with the sources. You |provided ten sources to support the claim that "The Iranian clerical government continuingly targets, imprisons, and executes MEK supporters". Of these, the first is an editorial from a dodgy source that refers to the torture of a couple of supporters only in their voice; the second refers to alleged attacks against members; the fourth talks of the MEK being a target of assassination; the fifth talks of a single person; the sixth talks of people who explicitly denied a connection with the MEK, and refers to charges that may or may not have a connection to the MEK; the seventh and eighth talk of incidents occurring decades ago; the ninth only confirms the death of one individual, and attributes the rest to the MEK; the tenth doesn't refer to current supporters, but to relatives of political opponents killed in the 80s. The only source which may be acceptable is the fourth, and you've provided no way of verifying that one. In short, you're engaging in forbidden synthesis. To be clear, I'm not saying your claim is false, only that it is unsupported by the sources you've provided. You are free to appeal this sanction to me, or to WP:AN, but please remember that WP:BANEX only allows you to discuss the ban itself; you may not discuss the conduct of other editors in relation to the MEK, nor can you discuss the topic in general while your ban is in place. I would recommend that you not appeal the ban, and instead that you focus on content in slightly less contentious areas, where you can demonstrate that you are being careful in your use of sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop hounding me
Let me make it clear, you need to immediately stop hounding me. Suddenly jumping into the discussion, where you have zero contribution to the page or its TP, is a strong evidence. ( for attention, please.) By the way, that drive by comment is totally irrelevant. -- M h hossein   talk 08:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * @Mhhossein: I am not hounding you. I've been very involved in articles related to protests in Iran: and so on... You should be warned to stop falsely accusing other editors, which is battleground behavior. Barca (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, what article are you referring to here? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You had zero edits to 2017–2018 Iranian protests and 2018 Khuzestan protests. I am talking about this weird comment. -- M h hossein   talk 18:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I linked the 2017–18 Iranian protests to the 2019–2020 Iranian protests, and it has been on my watchlist ever since (like most protests in Iran, a scope I've shown an interest in). Barca (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing a hounding issue here, but Mhhossein is correct in saying that comment makes little sense, and comes across as reflexive opposition. If you oppose the merger and want your opinion given weight, you're going to have to elaborate more than that, Barca. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood Mhhossein's proposal. I thought it was about merging 2017–2018 Iranian protests into the 2018 Khuzestan protests article, something that would not make any sense. I corrected it now. That still does not explain Mhhossein's false "hounding" accusations. Barca (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! MarioGom (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do my best to fill the edit summary field. Thanks for letting me know. Barca (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics
I would like to inform you that you have been added as involved party in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 17, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require assistance. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko  talk  22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted at the open Iranian politics case
In the open Iranian politics arbitration case, a number of remedies and finding of facts have been proposed, some of which relate to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 01:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (i) The community-authorized general sanctions for post-1978 Iranian politics are hereby superseded and replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.(iii) Notifications issued under Post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire.(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the arbitration enforcement log.(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.(vi) Administrators who have enforced the Post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
 * Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to take appropriate actions (pursuant to the discretionary sanctions authorization) to facilitate consensus through moderation of any Requests for Comments (RfC). These actions may include, but are not limited to:
 * moratoriums up to one year on initiating RfCs on a particular dispute,
 * word and/or diff limits on all RfC participants,
 * bans on editors who have disrupted consensus-finding from participation in a particular RfC, and
 * sectioned commenting rules in RfCs.
 * is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
 * is topic-banned from People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * is warned against a battleground mentality.
 * Discuss this at: