User talk:Kurdo777 - Knowledge (XXG)

568:

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 consensus

1099: 838: 794: 669: 454: 129: 1014: 596:

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.

163: 233:. 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. 1043:

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

595:

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

180:

Hello Kurdo777. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Knowledge (XXG), 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.

508:

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

567:

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

611:

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.

375:

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.

884:. 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 Knowledge (XXG). -- 181:

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.

330:, 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 get 253:

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

1172:. 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 impose 513:. 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 civility 421:

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,

540:

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. Please

770: 926: 197:

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated

198: 62:. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than 1197: 965: 694:

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.

310: 1137:. 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. 995: 855: 811: 711:

I informed him in Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as his recent edits include some vandalism like removig referenced information.

682: 471: 146: 334:. 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. 42: 743:

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.

1193: 488: 432: 48:

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than

1068: 1072: 59: 229:

You recently reverted changes to several articles I follow for alleged sockpuppetry. Among the articles most affected was

186: 510: 1021: 1211:

Hi, This is Mohammad, an old friend. I lost all your contacts (email, phone number, etc). Would you please contact me:

1184:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1189: 270:

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

104:

Since you have been doing a lot of edits on the Iranian 1953 page, I thought perhaps you would be interested in this:

912: 391:

You did not retract your claims about Binksternet asking me to perform the revert. So I have removed the thread.

1064: 969: 675: 668: 282:

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

306: 1219: 999: 643:

a proposed change to the Majd article I want to make sure is OK with recent editors (follows BLP and all) --

617: 601: 135: 128: 961: 298: 1116: 258:

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

250:

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

230: 208: 1185: 1056: 331: 1080: 904: 366: 1215: 1134: 934: 908: 866: 844: 837: 822: 800: 793: 748: 726: 699: 648: 1161: 1152: 1025: 577: 553: 522: 484: 460: 453: 428: 396: 381: 339: 302: 1181: 1165: 1040: 273:

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

94:

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

889: 613: 597: 358: 327: 1031: 987:

I wanted to thank you for looking out for vandalisms in various webpages..you might want to see

1112: 1098: 778: 716: 493: 437: 203: 113: 105: 1177: 1169: 1052: 261:"puppettheater" and not more. i only now understand that sockpuppet means what it does so my 1076: 362: 1180:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1173: 1060: 1036: 881: 418: 1142: 930: 862: 818: 744: 695: 644: 238: 264:

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

944:

Thanks. It was obvious from the start that these were all the socks of the same person.

570: 546: 515: 479: 423: 392: 377: 335: 945: 885: 730: 627: 509:

representatives, or make any similar statements, I will block you in accordance with

907:

Under the heading / section "query". For a consensus on the matter. Wa salam alikum.

774: 712: 109: 1051:

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

1048:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 17: 1212: 407: 1138: 234: 106:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Biased_article

417:

it is a quote from a reliable source so there is no reason to remove it,

773:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

725:

Samuel Noah Kramer has made no such claim, he was being misquoted. See:

1168:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

162: 1223: 1201: 1146: 1120: 1084: 1003: 973: 953: 938: 916: 903:

Salam alikum Kurdo777, I need your contribution / help in this issue:

893: 870: 851: 826: 807: 782: 752: 738: 720: 703: 652: 635: 621: 605: 582: 558: 527: 498: 467: 442: 400: 385: 370: 343: 314: 242: 214: 142: 117: 73: 1063:

for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant

958:

Thanks for standing firm on different topics.. Khoda Hefzet konad.

640: 413:

Kurdo, I don't understand why you are reverting. For example, in

1039:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 26: 1012: 858: