*If you have any content related questions or concerns, please use the relevant article's talk page

Since you have been doing a lot of edits on the Iranian 1953 page, I thought perhaps you would be interested in this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Biased_articleHave a nice day --Tondar1 (talk)16:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kurdo777. You have new messages atEbrahimi-amir's talk page.
Message added21:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dispute Resolution –Survey Invite Hello Kurdo777. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please clickHERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associatedresearch page.StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania!00:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted changes to several articles I follow for alleged sockpuppetry. Among the articles most affected wasSanctions against Iran. I'm not sure who the original banned editor was or what the offense was, or who the sockpuppets are, but there seems to have been a lot of legitimate and useful content (and perhaps some questionable content or spin) included. In short, the recourse seems a bit extreme. I was wondering if you could provide any more explanation.NPguy (talk)02:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sirs ,

I have opened this new Email account after i just realized that my account in wikipedia has been blocked.

i am "puppettheater" that has been blocked from editing. i am new in wikiedia just started to editin march 2012 . and never wrote entries of my own due to the fact thati don't feel experience anugh to do so

i have read the reasons why u have blocked me and i don't really understand . i only used only 1 account

"puppettheater" and not more. i only now understand that sockpuppet means what it does so my

choose of name was very unfortunate... i don't know who is amir husain is or the others

its true that i write about Iran and Brazil issue that i feel strongly about but i have always tried to use referents

as wiki demands. as a learner i did made some editting mistakes but learned from them on the way.

i would ask you to please re block my account and consider putting back my past edits that have been taken out

thank you

c.alves— Precedingunsigned comment added byPuppettheater1 (talk •contribs)08:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made a contentious change hereMohammad_Mosaddegh, it was reverted citing that it is a minority slant and disputed from the sources. I don't know how true or not that is, but I'm willingly to hear both arguments on the talk page. so discuss it on the talk page and getconsensus. Knowingly trying to outdo an editor by continually reverting him because you know he is on 1RR is itself edit warring. Do not do it.IRWolfie- (talk)13:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdo777, your accusation is baseless,the one saying that I asked IRWolfie to back me up at theMohammad Mosaddegh biography. I demand you retract it.Binksternet (talk)18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you retract baseless accusation. I watch Binksternet's user talkpage (as well as many other editors). You edited the talkpage. I followed the links out of curiosity. There is nothing particularly controversial about that.IRWolfie- (talk)18:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not retract your claims about Binksternet asking me to perform the revert. So I have removed the thread.IRWolfie- (talk)19:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdo, I don't understand why you are reverting. For example, inthis example it is a quote from a reliable source so there is no reason to remove it,WP:BLP does not apply to notable (which I believe this is) things which are reliably sourced (which this is). It may be that I'm missing something so would you mind enlightening me? Thanks,Callanecc (talk •contribs)talkback (etc) template appreciated.05:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kurdo777. You have new messages atCallanecc's talk page.
Message added06:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Callanecc (talk •contribs)talkback (etc) template appreciated.06:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are playing with words. Unless you are a lawyer, you can't instigate legal action yourself, but implying that you are going to contact the representatives to point out the alleged libel is clearly intended to imply a threat of legal action. If you repeat or carry out the threat to contact the representatives, or make any similar statements, I will block you in accordance withthis policy. Don't just keep reverting, discuss. Not also that ISPs do not have to edit under a username. If necessary, I'll protect this page and block who ever needs to be blocked to restore civilityJimfbleak - talk to me?06:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even study thelibel in question seems to imply that you have decided that an offence has taken place. Anyway, I have no particular interest in this topic, my sole purpose is to stop the edit warring. Pleasetalk to other editors rather than just reverting.Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for email. I thoughtthis was fairly clear. There is nothing to stop you contacting anyone about a BLP, but the way you phrased and repeated the statement read like a threat (at least to me). I'm always ready to assume good faith, but there is no need for you to say even once that you are contacting a representative. I'm trying to avoid taking direct action in this matter, since it appears to be a matter that should be resolved by participating adults, rather than me having to make a decision on the rights and wrongs of an article in which I have no editorial interest. However, If the warring factions can't sort it out, I'll make my own assessment of the issues (Is the disputed statement RS based? Is it potentially libellous? Should it be in the article lead? or at all?). I've deliberately avoided these issues because it should be the involved editors who reach a consensusJimfbleak - talk to me?10:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately text in the article can only reflect what the source(s) say. In this case the (admittedly lazy) piece of journo hackery words it that way, so the article also has reflect that. There is however no reason not to find another source where the subject gives his own view, in more neutral wording. In fact that would be the best option. The way to counter non-neutral sourced info is to find better sources. The reason I removed the text from the lede is that even in the source it doesnt attribute it to anyone. Not themselves, not others. Its basically linking to a source that could say 'Some say he eats babies for lunch' for all anyone can verify.Only in death does duty end (talk)09:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in thise case, if you go to the BLP page it looks like a better source has been found. Replacing the national post with the observer book review and rewording it to be more neutral would be better. Which would solve all the problems.Only in death does duty end (talk)10:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks.Kurdo777 (talk)10:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a proposed change to the Majd article I want to make sure is OK with recent editors (follows BLP and all) --BoogaLouie (talk)16:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kurdo777. You have new messages atMatthewVanitas's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

At Sumerian language, you removed a reference to Samuel Noah Kramer. Could I ask why as your edit summary didn't make sense to me. Thanks.Dougweller (talk)20:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I informed him in Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as his recent edits include some vandalism like removig referenced information.Barayev (talk)22:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Noah Kramer has made no such claim, he was being misquoted. See:User_talk:Dougweller#Re:_Question .Kurdo777 (talk)16:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the case, I've asked him why he thinks it does. I don't have the book but what I saw definitely suggested otherwise.Dougweller (talk)16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Barayev (talk)22:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kurdo777. You have new messages atDougweller's talk page.
Message added05:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk)05:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kurdo777. You have new messages atDougweller's talk page.
Message added15:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk)15:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...you should probably take that Chinese source toreliable sources noticeboard. One thing: it's written in pretty bad English. The other, Etruscan claims are clearly nonsense. Just because some individual of dubious notability once made them almost a century ago, it doesn't mean they belong in Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk)08:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salam alikum Kurdo777, I need your contribution / help in this issue:Talk:Afsharid dynastyUnder the heading / section "query".For a consensus on the matter.Wa salam alikum.Qatarihistorian (talk)10:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34.Dougweller (talk)20:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was obvious from the start that these were all the socks of the same person.Kurdo777 (talk)22:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for standing firm on different topics.. Khoda Hefzet konad.— Precedingunsigned comment added by96.255.251.165 (talk)02:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for looking out for vandalisms in various webpages..you might want to see [[1]] and here:[2][3]..incase of future vandalisms..--108.18.145.11 (talk)03:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at1953 Iranian coup d'état shows that you are currently engaged in anedit war.Being involved in an edit war can result in your beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article'stalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. SeeBRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.Binksternet (talk)04:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Great work on the Iran-related mass-delete. Stay on it.HectorMoffet (talk)19:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please verifythis map. I think it's not reliable and full of factual errors plus fringe and disruptive content. It's used on one or two articles. Odd usage.Zheek (talk)16:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is Mohammad, an old friend. I lost all your contacts (email, phone number, etc). Would you please contact me: mih0im0o@gmail.com --Sepehr hepes (talk)17:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]