Talk:Operation Zafar 7

message: Tone:
"easily defeated" (support?)
"stubbornly left them to defend"  (original research? support?)
etc.
The issues persist throughout, but the examples above are to explain my reasoning for POV tag.  I was moved to edit because I felt that the article was written by someone with a personal connection to the subject, and was written with a pro-iranian bias.  I am not well versed on the subject, but I think that it needs work on tone and citation, but most importantly on POV.  
Because of the unrest in Iraq and the tension between Iran and the West, I think it is essential for this and all related articles to be neutral.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndfiz (talk • contribs) 05:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The battle

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Halabja1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Be notified that use of multiple accounts/IPs can lead to your ban (Wikipedia:Sock puppetry). This is a fabricated WP:FRINGE theory (Read Halabja chemical attack#Allegations of Iranian involvement for more details.) and does not belong in the infobox as a "fact". Your NYT source is an op-ed, not a RS. Pahlevun (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't try to evade the point with discussing what has already been responded in Talk:Joint Operation Arvand#Iranian support of Kurds. Iranian alleged involvement is a Wikipedia:FRINGE theory and should not be asserted in the infobox. Pahlevun (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Talk page consensus is clear.  You are edit-warring and have violated the 3RR rule.  Another reversion will bring you to WP:ANI -- Again.  And you will get another block.  You do not own this page.  Disruptive editing carries strong penalties.  158.59.127.132 (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A "consensus" between you and who? You can already bring it to WP:ANI, but I suggest you to first explain yourself at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SeriousSam11. Pahlevun (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what consensus he's referring to, but I have to agree with the point 158.59.127.132 is making. However, your accusation against me of sockpuppeting (because I actually use a logged-in account unlike these others users) due to users on this site being upset for what I assume is your sabotage of multiple Wikipedia pages is unacceptable. That you claim that documented and established information is Wikipedia:FRINGE is revealing of ulterior intent. This demonstrates a very clear aversion to facts, Wikipedia:NPOV, and is pushing a political agenda. In another article, you were removing multiple references to books published by Iranian authors on Iranian support for Peshmerga, also calling it fringe. As a proper comparison, US support for the FSA group in Syria is well-documented and reported on and the US government and agencies admit to this.SeriousSam11 (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian involvement in Halabja attack