Talk:Akhtiar Mohammad (Guantanamo detainee 1036)

conflation

The second and third allegations against Akhtiar were:

• The detainee is a member of Itihad Islami.
• The HiG is listed in the Terrorist Organization Reference Guide as having long-established ties with Usama Bin Laden.

This is entirely atypical of the pattern of allegations Guantanamo captives faced. There are literally several hundred, possibly more than a thousand instances where there were pairs of related allegations.

• The first allegation in these pairs was always an allegation of a specific association between the captive and an suspicious individual or organization.
• The second allegation was always a general explanation or justification as to why the individual or organization was considered suspicious.
• This pair of allegations would follow the pattern, except, to follow the pattern, it should have explained how Ittihad-E-Islami was suspicious, not Hezbi-E-Islami. In fact Ittihad-E-Islami remained a member of the Northern Alliance.
• Hezbi-E-Islami and Ittihad-E-Islami were both militia groups that had fought against the Soviets, during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Both groups fought resisted the Taliban. The Hezbi-E-Islami was a fundamentalist group. When the USA invaded the leader of Hezbi-E-Islami, a former Prime Minister of Afghanistan named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and most of his followers, switched sides, and allied with the Taliban. This faction of the Hezbi-E-Islami was more opposed to invading foreigners, whether they were Soviet or American, than they were to the Taliban.

The Guantanamo authorities can't find the Hezbi-E-Islami ID card that they claim Akhtiar was captured with. Akhtiar acknowledged having an Ittihad-E-Islami ID card. He has been shown his Ittihad-E-Islami ID card. He denies all association with fundamentalists like the HIG.

I think I need to scale back the conclusion I came to, and failed to keep out of article space, that the Guantanamo intelligence analysts royally screwed up, and conflated Akhtiar's association with Ittihad-E-Islami, which remained one of the allies in the Northern Alliance, and the Hezbi-E-Islami Gulbuddin, which allied itself with the Taliban, after the American invasion.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A unilateral initiative...

Another wikipedia contributor recently started an unilateral initiative to remove referenced material from the captions of images of the trailer where CSR Tribunals were held, that the captives were shackled, hand and foot, to a bolt in the floor. This other contributor replaced the caption with another caption that asserts that the Tribunals were merely usually held in a small trailer. This contributor failed to provide a single reference to back up their assertion that some captives attended Tribunals that were not held in a trailer like the one pictured.

My response -- User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/shackles.

In my opinion the edits in this unilateral initiative is problematic because they remove referenced material and replaced it with the unreferenced assertion, that contradicts all WP:RS.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly let me assure you that there is and has never been "an unilateral initiative". Please be careful with such inflammatory language. IMO to falsely describe my edit in this way could be seen as an initiative itself and that would be a kind of initiative that has never been received well by the Wikipedia community.

Coming to the content issue that i guess you may want to discuss: I have read the page that you have created in your user space including the given references. I knew these information and references and some of it could be used to further improve Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

Regarding my edit to this article here. The biography of Akhtiar Mohammad i have to say the old version and the page you have created does not verify that Akhtiar Mohammad's CSRT took place in the trailer that is shown in the picture and it does not verify that Akhtiar Mohammad's hands were shackled to a bolt in the floor during his CSRT. In fact the page you have created strenghten the arguments for my version with the wording usually.

You have frequently pointed out that reliable sources are important to write WP articles and i fully agree with that and i have always done so.

As far as i see we do not have reliable sources that verify that Akhtiar Mohammad's tribunal was held in the trailer shown in the image and we do not have reliable sources that verify that Akhtiar Mohammad's hands were shackled in the way as it was described in the image description during his CSRT.

There are also many more requirements and rules that can not be ignored or broken when writing an encyclopedic article.

I think here you are ignoring the basic rules of logic.

To provide reliable sources that some detainees's CSRT were held in the trailer shown in the picture does not follow that Akhtiar Mohammad's CSRT was held in this trailer. As well reliable sources that some detainees were shackled during CSRT does not follow that Akhtiar Mohammad were.

This is an ongoing event and as soon we find reliable source that verify this information for Akhtiar Mohammad the subject of this biography without violating the rules of logic or other rules, than and only than should we add it to his biography. IQinn (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Unilateral" is not inflammatory, it is accurate. It means you made this change without discussing it first. Sometimes it is completely appropriate to make changes without discussing them first. When we think they are trivial, and all later readers will agree they are a good idea, by all means we should go ahead and make them without discussing them first. You started making the same change to all instances of the caption, in every article you came across it. I've called this an "initiative". While this may not be a commonly used term for this kind of activity across a bunch of related articles, I disagree that it is inflammatory language. Nevertheless, if there is some term you would prefer for your habit of making essentiall the same change across a bunch of related articles, without discussing your plans first, please offer it here. As a courtesy to you I will use it in future, instead of calling them your unilateral initiatives.

Thank you for reading my notes on the use of shackles at Guantanamo. I am very surprised however to read your conclusion that the reporter who provided the most coverage of Guantanamo writing that it was standard procedure for the captives to be shackled to the floor establishes that they were shackled to the floor. I am, again, very surprised to read your conclusion that the Tribunal Presidents informing the captives that the shackling of their hands and feet to the floor was "standard operating procedure" established that they were shackled to the floor. A version of those Standard Operating Procedures are online. If you aren't satisfied I invite you to hunt them up, and read them for yourself.

It is not just Carol Rosenberg who reports that every Tribunal was held in a trailer like that one. Every single reference you will find that describes the captives attending their Tribunals has written that they were held in trailers like that one. I believe I have met the requirement for WP:RS multiple times.

Iqinn, you write: "There are also many more requirements and rules that can not be ignored or broken when writing an encyclopedic article." I am not sure what you mean here. If you are reminding me that the wikipedia has accreted a complicated body of policies and guidelines all our contributions should comply with, I think you already know I know that. But if you are implying this particular contribution of mine does not comply with some specific policy or guideline, why please spell out how. I always do my best to remember that I am fallible, and that, in spite of my best efforts, I may innocently and unknowingly lapse from some policy. That is why my record shows I bend over backwards to take seriously and offer meaningful and substantive responses to those who have concerns they can express that are both civil and specific.

Iqinn, you write: "I think here you are ignoring the basic rules of logic." Iqinn, if you think you can meaningfully expand on this statement in a way that complies with our policies and conventions on civility and collegiality, then I encourage you to do so. If, however, you cannot meaningfully expand on this statement in a way that complies with our policies and conventions on civility and collegiality, then I encourage you question whether you should have made that statement in the first place.

Iqinn, you write: "To provide reliable sources that some detainees's CSRT were held in the trailer shown in the picture does not follow that Akhtiar Mohammad's CSRT was held in this trailer. As well reliable sources that some detainees were shackled during CSRT does not follow that Akhtiar Mohammad were."

You have assured me, several times, that you do, in fact, understand WP:VER. But then, following those assurances, you write something like the above, which strongly suggests the opposite The sources I cited clearly say ALL captives were shackled during their Tribunals. The sources I cited clearly say ALL captives were brought to trailers like the one pictured for their Tribunals. I am mystified as to why you choose to interpret those WP:RS as saying that merely some captives were shackled, and that some captives were brought to pre-fab trailers for their Tribunals.

It could be that, for some reason, you think you know that some captives attended Tribunals that weren't held in those trailers, so, even though Carol Rosenberg and the other reporters said they were all brought to those trailers, you choose to discount her clear statement because you believe she was mistaken. If that were the case -- if, for the sake of argument, you were a former GI, who actually worked at Guantanamo in late 2004, and you saw with your own eyes that some captives were brought to different venues for their Tribunals -- that would be irrelevant. If, for the sake of argument, you told us you were a former GI, who actually worked at Guantanamo, and even if you told us you were swearing on a stack of bibles, we would have to ignore what you claimed happened there. Why? Because you are not a WP:RS, and what you reported from your personal experience there would not comply with WP:VER. We couldn't verify it. I have my own notions of what went on at Guantanamo. Even if the claims of someone who asserted they were a former guard totally agreed with my personal notions of what went on there, I would insist on its removal from article space, due to WP:VER and WP:NOR, and some other policies.

You claimed I was "ignoring the basic rules of logic." It could be that you choose to discount the clear wording of our WP:RS because there are reasons you don't consider it "logical" that all captives were always shackled. If that is what you mean that would also be irrelevant.

Iqinn, you write: "This is an ongoing event and as soon we find reliable source that verify this information for Akhtiar Mohammad the subject of this biography without violating the rules of logic or other rules, than and only than should we add it to his biography." I think I need to be candid here. I read this paragraph several times, and I am still reduced to guessing as to what point you were trying to make.

If by "This is an ongoing event" you meant the CSR Tribunals and other OARDEC reviews -- well, that is incorrect. The last CSR Tribunals were those of captives ISN 10025-10030, in 2008. President Obama directed a brand new review process replace the OARDEC reviews.

As I said above, I believe I have already provided you with multiple times as many WP:RS as necessary.

You imply, again, that I violating a rule of logic, without being specific about which rule of logic that would be, or how I violated it. And you imply I am violating the wikipedia's policies, without being specific about which rule of logic that would be, or how I violated it. I encourage you, again, to try harder to offer fuller, more specific, explanations when you have a concern that someone is at risk of sailing close to, or over, the boundary of one of our policies.

FWIW, if you were to review the rest of the public record, you would learn that the captives were shackled to their hospital beds when they were in hospital -- without exception. Saifullah Paracha needed heart bypass surgery. He petitioned, through the civilian justice system, to have that bypass surgery in the Continental US, because he was concerned the standard operating procedure that all captives be shackled to their hospital beds, without exception, would impair his recovery from surgery. The Navy cardiologist who came to Guantanamo to examine him told him, if he had the surgery, his recovery would depend on him getting up from his hospital bed, and walking around, at least once every half hour. The standard operating procedure on shackling prohibited this. All the Guantanamo captives are shackled into their dentist's chair, when they have dental work.

If you look at the classroom that was built there in recent years, or the room where captives are allowed to make phone calls, you will see the bolts where they are shackled to the floor. Similarly, the rooms where the captives meet their habeas attorneys come equipped with bolts to shackle them to the floor. And their lawyers' accounts confirm that they were always shackled during their meetings.

File:Classroom for compliant captives in Guantanamo.jpg File:Arabic class room 2.jpg File:Arabic class room 3.jpg File:Camp one Guantanamo has a lounge for captives to phone home.jpg File:Camp 5 interview room.jpg File:Captive's medical clinic, Camp 6, Guantanamo.jpg

I drafted the caption you replaced. I don't own the caption. You have stated that I object to having my wording changed due to ownership issues. That is, at minimum, a lapse from AGF on your part. My record shows that I participate in discussions sincerely, and sometimes realize I am mistaken. My record shows that when I realize my correspondent has made a good point, I openly acknowledge that. My record shows that when I realize I have made a mistake, I do my best openly acknowledge that. My record shows that I accept community consensus, and abide by it, even if I disagree with it.

I accept that this caption, like every other passage I drafted, and contributed to the wikipedia, is up for revision by other good faith contributors. I am not insisting that my version be preserved. I am not entitled to do that. And I have no objection to attempts to improve them. However, just like the passages I didn't draft, I am as entitled as any other wikipedia contributor to expect other wikipedia contributors who suggest the removal or revision of material to be able to make a good faith attempt to explain the removal or revision, upon request.

FWIW I too think the caption could be improved. I have been careful, in this discussion, to qualify that we only know that the Tribunals for which the captives were present were held in the trailers. From the records published by the DoD, captives weren't present for about 2/5ths of the 558 Tribunals. The records show that, at least one CSRT was conducted using teleconferencing. If you read the habeas documents released after FOIA requests, you will see that some of the most controversial Tribunals -- the "do-overs" among them -- were convened in Washington DC. Geo Swan (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

move

I plan to move this BLP Akhtiar Mohammad (Guantanamo captive 1036) to Akhtiar Mohammad what is now a redirect to the article article here. Any good reason why that should not be done? IQinn (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I remind you that there are multiple sets of Guantanamo captives with essentially identical names.

JTF-GTMO transliterated Akhtiar Mohammad (Guantanamo captive 1036)'s name almost identically to the names of Akhtar Mohammed (Guantanamo captive 845) and Akhtar Mohammed (Guantanamo captive 969).

I remind you that most Afghans are illiterate.

I remind you that there is no established rule for how to transliterate Mohammed into English. Mohamed, Mohammed, Mohammad, Muhammad, Mahmoud, and various other transliterations are all different transliterations. I suggest to you that it is the same for "Akhtiar" and "Akhtar", or that, if they aren't the same name, they remain so similar that transliteration is essential.

Iqinn, you have repeatedly relied on single letter differences in transliteration, as if that was sufficient to differentiate individuals with similar names. You have repeatedly relied on these trivial differences in transliteration as if they were meaningful for individuals, who, once the non-existence of reliable, standard transliterations was taken into account, we really need to recognize having the same name. You have relied on trivial differences in transliteration in this suggested move, in other suggested moves, and in moves you made without requesting feedback from others, as to whether the renaming was a good idea.

Iqinn, if you are going to suggest renaming articles, please do so while bearing in mind the implications of the non-existence of a standard for transliteration. If you are going to do so, please ofer actual reasons for doing so.

I continue to believe that there are several common issues, around choosing new names for these individuals. I renew my request for a central discussion for discussing these common issues, and how they affect individual name change suggestions -- so that any name changes those working on these topics agree to are performed in a consistent manner. Geo Swan (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to remind the contributor who is suggested renaming this individual, who shares a name with two other captives, that he has already suggested renaming Abdul Razzaq (Guantanamo detainee 923), for exactly the same reason. I already explained that there were many other Guantanamo captives with identical names, or names that are identical, barring transliteration artifacts. Do you have a new reason for suggesting this rename? If so please offer it. Renaming shouldn't be done for frivolous reasons. And if you are going to suggest renaming, please offer the reasons you think it is a good idea. Geo Swan (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all (no offence) i must say i find your post here and at other places a bit rude. Your description here how "Iqinn" chooses better names for these set of articles is completely wrong. I also have never changed names of articles for frivolous reasons. That is also absolutely wrong and i would like to suggest you to read WP:Civility again. I have spent weeks of work in evaluating of the names of these set of articles under many different aspects. These are the biographies of many different people with different lives, circumstances and source for that. And more and more sources and information are coming up. The best name for any of these individuals can only be done case by case.

Please do not feel offended we all know how much work you put into these about 650 biographies of Guantanamo detainees. I checked the majority of these articles concerning the article name and i have no problem with most of them, good job!

I have renamed a small fraction roughly 15 articles where there is little doubt that the new name increases the quality of Wikipedia for various reasons. I would never claim that i am always right and there are always new arguments and sources coming up to further improve on it. If you or anybody else has a better idea for any of these articles than she/he is welcome to take part in the discussion on the related articles talk pages.

I have suggested the move for roughly 30 other articles of the set of 650 articles, after you have claimed that every move needed to be discussed with you in advanced. What reminded me on WP:OWNERSHIP as well that you request long explanation for many edits in advanced reminds me on WP:OWNERSHIP. Other editors agreed with me that this may not be needed under common WP editing practice. Anyway i have no problem with leaving a message at the relevant talk page before the move. You are welcome to join the search and discussion for the best name of these small set of the 650 articles where is think a name change would increase the quality of Wikipedia.

We are not speaking about an article set of Pokemon's or airplanes's. These are the biographies of mostly living people and every of them has the right to have their name chosen carefully by evaluating all available individual sources and circumstances of each individual person. It is also imported to preserve our reputation as an high quality encyclopedia as well to keep us out of trouble we have to make sure that article names are hight quality and that they will never be seen as inappropriate or offensive.

Coming to the content issue here: the move of the biography of Akhtiar Mohammad. I strongly believe that the article name Akhtiar Mohammad (Guantanamo captive 1036) is inappropriate with the description captive 1036 in the title what is dehumanizing.

I have suggested a solution by moving this article to Akhtiar Mohammad what is now a redirect to this page here.

I know and have known about the other former Guantanamo inmates with similar name and i still believe to move this page is the right thing to do and then to deal with the possible biography confusion what never was a big issue. There are ways to deal with that. One possible solution for that would be a link at the top of the page with a short sentence to make aware of similar names and a link to the relevant page. The ISN numbers are also inside the introduction in each of the three articles. I still believe moving this page to Akhtiar Mohammad is the right thing to do as Akhtiar Mohammad (Guantanamo captive 1036) is an inappropriate name for the biography of Akhtiar Mohammad. IQinn (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not addressing the most important substantive point. These individuals are not three individuals with slightly similar names. They are not individuals with closely similar names. Once the artifacts due to non-standard transliteration are discounted these three individuals have identical names. You force me to repeat myself -- this makes disambiguation essential.

You write that you renamed about fifteen articles. You renamed something like a dozen articles in December, and in only one instance, the first, did you make a meaningful attempt to show your work, to discuss the alternate names, to state where you found the sources for the other options. For the remainder you didn't discuss the move first. It was my opinion that the edit summaries you left were misleading, because they implied that the NYTimes choice of transliteration relied on the advice of experts in the transliteration of names of individuals originally rendered in languages that don't use European scripts. I pointed out that the NYTimes asserted no such thing. I pointed out that the NYTimes choice of transliterations was internally inconsistent. I pointed out that it is not consistent with other source, like historian Andy Worthington, who has devoted the last four years to studying the Guantanamo captives.

After my questions you started placing brief suggestions on the talk pages first. I found those brief suggestions disappointingly bare of any meaningful detail. Your brief suggestions continued to treat the NYTimes choice of transliterations as if it relied on the advice of real experts in transliteration. And you claimed you had carefully evaluated other sources -- without saying what those sources were, or what they said that merited mentioning them.

I requested you to show your work. I requested you to flesh out your very sparse arguments. Instead, rather than provide more detail, or show your sources, you made additional suggestions for moves where you couldn't be asked to flesh out your reasoning or show your work, because you you didn't offer any arguments whatsoever.

You wrote above: "I have spent weeks of work in evaluating of the names of these set of articles under many different aspects." Well, maybe you are experiencing something I have experienced, and still experience stage two of. Stage one, do a lot of reading, come across some information one considers important -- while, unfortunately, not making enough notes; Stage two, kick one's self for not making sufficient notes, when a good-faith contributor makes a reasonable request for the details that I would have been able to supply if I had made better notes.

If that is what you are experiencing I am not without sympathy. I spent a couple of hours on that shackles document I drafted for you. I had some notes, but there were documents I remembered reading that I hadn't made notes about. If that is what you are experiencing I think it is reasonable for the rest of us to expect you to do what I did when I remembered things I hadn't made enough notes about around the shackels. Namely go back, and look for the references you neglected to make note of when you first read them. It should take a lot less time to look for references you once read, and neglected to make note of, than it takes to look for references that are brand new to you.

All of us wikipedia volunteers should be working to learn how to be better contributors, all the time, without regard to whether we have years of experienc, or months, or weeks. Even the most experienced contributor remains fallible, and is going to have things to learn.

WRT to your renaming of a dozen, or fifteen articles, and your suggestions to move another two or three dozen, which still seem to be based on a reliance on the NYTimes. Do we know how many articles you plan to move to the transliteration used by the NYTimes? No, we don't.

A point of clarification -- when you wrote: "I have spent weeks of work in evaluating of the names of these set of articles under many different aspects..." -- did you mean that, over recent weeks you spent a meaningful amount of time actively looking for alternate names, but didn't make notes. Or did you mean you spent actual weeks -- over 80 person-hours -- devoted solely to researching alternate names for those forty articles? That would be over two hours per article. You asked me for the source of the current name for several of the articles, when the source for the current name was right in the "Identity" section of the article.

The justification you offer for renaming this article is the same as that you offered back in July for Abdul Razzaq (Guantanamo detainee 923). Other participants did not agree with that proposal back then.

Iqinn write: "These are the biographies of mostly living people and every of them has the right to have their name chosen carefully by evaluating all available individual sources and circumstances of each individual person. It is also imported to preserve our reputation as an high quality encyclopedia as well to keep us out of trouble we have to make sure that article names are hight quality and that they will never be seen as inappropriate or offensive."

No one disputes that names should be chosen carefully. As to whether we need to make sure they are "never seen as inappropriate or offensive"... I suggest that is far to high a bar to jump, and conflicts with our names being neutral and high quality. We live in a complicated world, and our readership includes people with axes to grind, who are apt to find all but the highly biased and terms prefered by their fringe group.

White supremacists, for instance, might object to any disambiguator other than, let's say, "race traitor", for politicians and human rights workers who have worked for equal rights for people of all ethnic backgrounds. Similarly, they might object to a disambiguator like "human rights worker", or "gay activist", for "gay activist", and try to insist it was inappropriate, and that the only accurate disambiguators were things like "paederast".

Clearly trying to make sure no-one ever objected to a disambiguator would be a fruitless and damaging task. In the case of the Guantanamo captives, I suggest disambiguators that don't include their stay in Guantanamo make the name less useful for readers without a meaningful benefit.

I point out, again, that you haven't advanced a workable alternative name. The move to "Akhtiar Mohammad" is not a workable alternative, because it does not distinguish him from the two other individuals whose names, once stripped of the artifacts of transliteration, are identical.

I considered looking up the place of birth, or date of birth, for these captives, and using one or both of those as disambiguators, instead of their ISN. What I found was that the place of birth field supplied by JTF-GTMO was insufficient. In some cases it specified a village name, and in some cases a Province. So two individuals disambiguated by the JTF-GTMO place of birth might both be from teh same Province, without the disambiguator reflecting that. Similarly the date of birth was not sufficient. And some captives didn't have a place of birth or date of birth listed. Finally, the disambiguator should be an important characteristic of the individuals. We wouldn't use an individual's hair color as a disambiguator. For almost all these individuals the most notable event in their life is their detention in Guantanamo.

There was an individual where another contributor changed their disambiguator from (Guantanamo detainee Nnn) to simply (detainee). But, it turned out that there was another individual, with exactly the same name, taken into custody in India following a bombing there.

Iqinn, you write: "Anyway i have no problem with leaving a message at the relevant talk page before the move. You are welcome to join the search and discussion for the best name of these small set of the 650 articles where is think a name change would increase the quality of Wikipedia." Iqinn, you are leaving notes where you say you plan to rename articles -- but in most of these recent cases you are offering absolutely zero justifications for the proposed renaming -- other than your personal assurance that you are suggesting your new name after a "careful evaluation".

I know I am fallible, and I know you are too. You have a habit I urge you to curb, of reacting to civil question and civil feedback about your statements and actions as if it were a personal attack. I do not regard it as a personal attack to point out to you that you, like me, and every other wikipedia contributor -- are fallible. I do not regard it as a personal attack to remind you that you relied on simple changes of one or two letters, between similar names, as sufficient disambiguation -- overlooking that these apparent differences of one or two letters were artifacts of transliteration. They did not reflect actual differences in the different individuals names, at all. Please understand that, due to my noticing these important lapses on your part has eroded my confidence in your careful evaluation to the point where I am not comfortable trusting your move suggestions, without you showing your work.

Iqinn, you are the one suggesting these moves. I think it should fall to you to do the homework. I suggest to you that if showing your work, laying out the alternate names, and offering the major pros and cons, if any, of the leading candidates, seems like too much work to you, then this is a sign that the move is not important enough to make.

Iqinn, I have left your suggestion of ownership, your comment that you found my comments rude, to the last. This talk page is not the right place for your comments. And it is not the right place for my reply. I will reply elsewhere, shortly. Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

misleading edit summaries

Another contributor removed thousands of valid and useful wiklinks from close to one hundred articles. They made these widespread changes without asking anyone else for input.

I reverted those changes to a few articles today, and explained why at Talk:Ibrahim Mahdy Achmed Zeidan#explanation. I am very concerned that the excising contributor has restored their controversial and essentially unexplained versions, with the misleading claim in the edit summary that the issue is "under discussion". Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Akhtiar Mohammad (Guantanamo detainee 1036). 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:

• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myrtlebeachonline.com%2F611%2Fstory%2F491372.html&date=2008-06-18 with http://www.webcitation.org/5YgIFQoQU?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myrtlebeachonline.com%2F611%2Fstory%2F491372.html on http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/611/story/491372.html
• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcclatchydc.com%2Fhomepage%2Fstory%2F38771.html&date=2008-06-20 with https://web.archive.org/web/20080615214204/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38771.html on http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38771.html
• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcclatchydc.com%2Fhomepage%2Fstory%2F38776.html&date=2008-06-20 with https://web.archive.org/web/20080619001329/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38776.html on http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38776.html
• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcclatchydc.com%2Fhomepage%2Fstory%2F38887.html&date=2008-06-20 with https://web.archive.org/web/20080620122327/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38887.html on http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38887.html
• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcclatchydc.com%2Fhomepage%2Fstory%2F38775.html&date=2008-06-20 with https://web.archive.org/web/20080620001639/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38775.html on http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38775.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619001329/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38776.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38776.html

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) 16:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

the Iqinn legacy

This talk page contains comments from User:Iqinn, showing an unwillingness to engage in civil discussion. After over two years of incivility the team behind this activity were blocked for increasingly long periods -- to try to get them to take seriously administrator admonishments. They were finally indefinitely blocked for edit-warring.

Following this indefinite block the team tried to continue their activity through sockpuppetry. Geo Swan (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Akhtiar Mohammad (Guantanamo detainee 1036). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304175010/http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/ to http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/611/story/491372.html

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) 02:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Akhtiar Mohammad (Guantanamo detainee 1036). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://services.mcclatchyinteractive.com/detainees?page=3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090830181036/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html

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) 06:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)