Talk:Naser Jason Abdo

"See also" section NPOV

Note: V7-sport titled the collapsed content "irrelevant bickering" but actually it discusses the NPOV in the "See also" section and actually the section should be titled "discussion". He broke already WP:BRD and i do not see any value in following his example, so i am leaving this message here instead. IQinn (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

On revert you should provide a justification for these links in the See also section that are already linked in the article. And you should explain and you should not personally attack other editors that is not helpful. So why do we need to repeat these two links that are already in the article very near to the "See also" section? IQinn (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's directly related to this article, therefore it should be in the see also. Not going to repeat myself over and over for your benefit on yet another talk page so just re-read that. V7-sport (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many links in the article that are directly connected and we do not repeated them all in "See also". So you need to explain what is your justification for these two links. Abeer Qassim al-Janabi is equally related to this article but you did not include this link and many others.Abeer Qassim al-Janabi is equally relevant. Why is this link not there? IQinn (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's directly related to this article, therefore it should be in the see also. Not going to repeat myself over and over for your benefit on yet another talk page so just re-read that. V7-sport (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You did not answer my questions and you have not explained why you choose these two links over other links that are also relevant as Abeer Qassim al-Janabi? Please do discuss in a civil manner and work towards consensus. IQinn (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked Abeer Qassim al-Janab didn't try to shoot up Fort Hood. This is as civil as it gets, I'm not going to waste another evening because you need attention. V7-sport (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Right Abeer Qassim al-Janabi was a 14 year old girl gang raped, murdered and burned by US Army Soldiers. And Naser Jason Abdo has given her name as a reason for his planned attack. So it is at least equal relevant. Why not include her. You have any objection to that and when please explain why? IQinn (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained to you, she didn't try to shoot up Fort Hood. Hassan did. This was allegedly a copycat of that attack. That's why it's relevant. V7-sport (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained to you, he has brought forward the crime at Abeer Qassim al-Janabi as a justification for his alleged plot. That crime was committed by US Army soldiers and he named her equally as he named Nidal. They are equally relevant. So if you object to the inclusion of the Abeer Qassim al-Janabi than you have to explain that. I have shown that she is equally relevant for the given reason. Your choice is very biased. IQinn (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Same thing over and over with you, yet again... Once again, she didn't try to blow up or shoot up Fort Hood. Not going to repeat myself over and over for your benefit on yet another talk page so just re-read that.V7-sport (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You give a reason why Nidal is relevant i your view worth to be repeated in the See also but that is not the question and i am more than happy if you stop repeating that. I have show that Abeer Qassim al-Janabi is at least equally relevant. So why not include her. Your selection is biased. IQinn (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

" is relevant i your view worth to be repeated in the See also " Is not communicating in English. Other editors have questioned whether you have the WP:competence to edit here, if you can't effectively communicate you don't. You haven't "shown" anything, just asked the same questions over and over. V7-sport (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well attacking other editors ad hominem is by best a waste of time and sometimes people get punished for that. It seems to me that you do not have a good answer to that question and you just refuses to debate to keep the bias that has been introduced into the article by you. Please discuss in a civil manner and answer the relevant question regarding the content issue and work towards consensus. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not an "attack" to question whether or not you have the competence to edit here, indeed, other editors have done so. It seems to me that you are unwilling to see the answers provide for you. Your preferred tactic is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and I find it boring. I found it boring 50 filled up talk pages ago. V7-sport (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT seems to be on your site and yes your repeated ad hominem is boring and distracts from a civil content based discussion. You have not given an good reason for your biased selection of "See also" section. It has been shown that Abeer Qassim al-Janabi is equally relevant. So why is she not there? Please work towards consensus and discuss in a civil manner. IQinn (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've explained it to you several times. If she had shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood then yes, she would have been "equally relevant". Since this was not a copycat of a crime she committed your argument is just lame.V7-sport (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your explanation does not make much sense and is a great filibuster to keep your bias in this section. Abeer Qassim al-Janabi has been named as a reason for the attack, a girl raped and murdered by US Army soldiers. Why you don't want to have that equally pointed out? You just concentrate on one POV what is a violation of WP:NPOV and that is the issue here. IQinn (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My explanation would make sense to someone who had the competence to edit on Wikipedia. Abeer Qassim al-Janabi has not "been named as a reason for the attack". That is you mischaracterizing what the sources say, again. Regardless, she is linked in the article. You seem to think that repeating "raped and murdered " all over wikipedia will be somewhat more indicting. The Army put the people responsible for that in prison. The Jihadists celebrate the crimes of Hasan and regard him as a hero to be emulated. The only "violation" here is that you are wikihounding yet again. V7-sport (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well once again you refuse to discuss in a civil way and uses ad hominem instead of engaging in a civil constructive debate. You do not work towards consensus and i can only speculate that you use ad hominem arguments because you do not have strong content focused arguments. "Wikihouding" :)) rediculous accusation we work in the same field. You claim WP:OWNERSHIP over this article and tries to drive away other editors?

May i also ask you why you deleted most of the verified content of this article Human Rights Record of the United States despite the fact that these allegations were verified? [1] That seems to be not helpful to our goals at Wikipedia and i can only imagine that it either happened because you do not understand our policies or that you misuses them to spread your obvious POV? IQinn (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've answered the questions pertinent to this discussion. The idea that you are not WP:wikihounding is ridiculous when you are asking about edits made on other subjects. Accusing me of spreading obvious POV is not assuming good faith and against wikipedia policy. (as is mischaracterizing what sources say which you do with regularity) I might have wondered if you are not a craven wiki-jihadist who empathizes with the islamist terrorists who you have a long history of defending, however that wouldn't be assuming good faith. Instead I wonder, along with other editors who brought up the subject up, whether or not you are competent to edit here. Regardless, as usual this has gone nowhere. It would be nice if you would go fixate on someone else. V7-sport (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well instead of addressing the content issue and answering my question you attacking me again with ad hominem arguments. That is all to false and you do not provide diffs for your claims. What is troublesome. This article obviously belongs to the "war on terror" were i have worked for the last 2 years. and Abeer Qassim al-Janabi was one of the first articles i came in contact with 2 years ago. That's why i came here over her name in the news. You really want to claim WP:OWNERSHIP over this article and drive away me away? When are you going to address my arguments regarding the content issue and work towards consensus? IQinn (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ive answered you over and over. Again, go wikihound someone else, (there are plenty of people here who you can pester although it's pretty sad that you need to do this) I'm not interested. V7-sport (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC) ]]

As an involved editor you should not collapse the debate and you should not do it repeatedly as this is edit warring. (I must say your behavior in my view looks a bit childish) You are refusing to discuss the content issue in a civil way and to work towards consensus. That is troublesome and disruptive to our work and you are not driving me away with this WP:OWNERSHIP behavior. Either uncollapse this debate and work towards consensus or i am going to start a new threat to finish up the discussion and to achieve consensus. IQinn (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A normal adult would find tis endless tendentious editing embarrassing, you seem to be proud of your performance here. Your questions have been answered repeatedly. I have "discussed" it with you ad nauseum, you don't hear what anyone else has to say. V7-sport (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You have not addressed the relevant arguments and you are not working towards consensus. I can only guess that this is because you are missing compelling content focused arguments that would support you point. Instead you once again uses ad hominem "A normal adult would find tis endless tendentious editing embarrassing, you seem to be proud of your performance here." and you engages in edit warring by repeatedly collapsing a content debate as an involved editor with the title "irrelevant bickering". Not the way to solve content disputes, believe me. I can only say i personally find that childish. I am now going to start a new threat about the content issue and you are free to engage in that in a civil way or you might just stay away from it. If you do engages in it and considering this debate here i do not really expect you to work towards consensus and compromise, but i wish you change and do. If not than i am going to conflict resolution with it. IQinn (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What "argument" of yours have I not addressed? V7-sport (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

EG. WP:NPOV. 01:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't an answer. Again: What "argument" of yours have I not addressed?V7-sport (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The argument (or claim if you have difficulties to understand these simple terms) that the "See also" section is biased. WP:NPOV is one of or core policies. And be reminded that shouting is not civil. IQinn (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How, exactly is the "see also" section biased? Be exact. Oh, and there isn't any shouting. Bold type is not "uncivil", stop looking for things to complain about. V7-sport (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you might be more careful as bold are often interpreted as shouting and shouting is uncivil, especially when there seems to be no other reason for the bold text. Or what was the reason for presenting the whole sentence in bold?

For the content issue. That has been explained above. The section focus on one POV (providing 10 links to convicted terrorist and suspected terrorists) and does exclude links of e.g. Abeer Qassim al-Janabi the name Abdo shouted in court. A girl that was raped and killed by soldiers of the same military base as Abdo. That has been covered widely in secondary sources. I would also like to name WP:BLP as it seems to be unreasonable to clutter the See also section with more than ten links of convicted or suspected terrorists. In an article were the subject has not been convicted of any terrorist related crimes. IQinn (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The bold text was trying to get you to do something that you weren't doing, being specific. What has been explained above is that you think Abeer Qassim al-Janabi should be duplicated in the links and I disagree. There is already a link to it in the text. From what I can gather by your attempts here is that you seem to want to draw some kind of moral equivalence between that incident and this and there isn't any because the soldiers who committed that crime were tried and convicted. The islamist who shot up fort hood is revered as a hero among the terrorists and that is why Abdo emulated this attack. We have discussed this already and you keep coming back and claiming that what you have written hasn't been addressed. It has been. Several times. This was a copycat crime. Got it?

When you write "I would also like to name WP:BLP as it seems to be unreasonable to clutter the See also section with more than ten links of convicted or suspected terrorists. " that doesn't make any sense. "You would like to name WP:BLP" I can't address your complaint when your complaint isn't in English. See the whole WP:COMPETENCE thing again. The links to the terrorists (surprised you used the "t" word are there because they relate to this case. There isn't anything "NPOV" about a "see also" list. Linking to other terrorists and alleged terrorists is not a finding of guilt in his case. V7-sport (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

1) "I would also like to name" not English. Hhaaa What language do you speak? Why you waste time again with ad hominem? I now after communication so long with you i honestly have doubt that you have COMPETENCE enough for a civil constructive debate that leads to compromise and consensus. WP is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

2) Right it is not a finding of guilt but is a disproportional focus that could create guilt by association in the few of some of our readers. How about we work towards compromise and consensus and we agree on removing a few less relevant of them?

3) May i also ask you again for an answer why you deleted most of the verified content of this article Human Rights Record of the United States despite the fact that these allegations were verified? [2]. I am planning to address this issue next. IQinn (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, ""I would also like to name WP:BLP " doesn't make any sense. You still don't know what ad hominem means either. "Right it is not a finding of guilt but is a disproportional focus that could create guilt by association in the few of some of our readers." doesn't make any sense either.

RE the Human Rights Record of the United States... You really aren't concerned that you are wikihounding, huh... V7-sport (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

""I would also like to name WP:BLP " doesn't make any sense." Well it makes perfectly sense and unfortunately until now you have not explained why it should not make sense?

Be assured that i perfectly know what ad hominem means and your comment is a perfect example of it. There seems to be nothing in your reply that shows that you are working towards compromise and consensus. WRT: "huh..." 1) Why should that be "wikihounding"? 2) Do you claim WP:OWNERSHIP over this article? 3) Why don't you answer the question i have ask you about this content issue? IQinn (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make "perfectly sense". "Ownership" and "stalking" are different things. Why not read the policies that you like to link to every once in a while?V7-sport (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well you miss again to explain why and i can only guess that's because you do not have a good explanation. Why don't you answer my questions? IQinn (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Well you miss again to explain why " IE, "it makes perfectly sense and unfortunately until now you have not explained why it should not make sense."

It doesn't make any sense because "I would also like to name WP:BLP" doesn't signify anything. Putting that series of words together in that order does not convey a coherent message in the English language. Is that explanation enough? V7-sport (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is wrong in the context where is have used it. Back to the content issue i have suggested a compromise and work towards consensus as i suggested removing a few of the less relevant links from the "See also" section. Why can't you work towards compromise and consensus? You have also not answered my questions regarding the removal of information on the other article that was sourced? As well you did not answer my question why it would be "wikihounding" if i would edit that article? IQinn (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Well, that is wrong in the context where is have used it." ????? I don't understand what you are trying to say there.

" i suggested removing a few of the less relevant links from the "See also" section" The links in the see also section are, obviously, relevant.

"You have also not answered my questions regarding the removal of information on the other article that was sourced?" I gave reasons for my edits in the edit summaries. Stop wp:wikistalking me for the millionth time.

As well you did not answer my question why it would be "wikihounding" if i would edit that article? Because, obviously, you are looking through my edit list and trying to find some way of picking yet another fight.

You were given some good observations by Mnnlaxer here [3] "IQinn, from reading a fair amount of your writing, I have seen that your reading comprehension is not very good. The similarity is "non-specific argumentation". Above you keep saying the same thing over and over, without once providing a reliable source to the disputed sentence. In regard to the Slahi article, you cannot provide a single example of any OR in the article. You non-specifically repeat your claim over and over. That's quite similar. Another similarity is your ignorance of what ad hominem (note the spelling) means." When someone writes something like that to you, you are supposed to say to yourself: "Gee, maybe I shouldn't do that"... That was 6 months ago and your comprehension still isn't up to the level you need to be editing here, you still non-specifically repeat your claim over and over and you still don't understand the blue links you routinely post as some kind of blanket rebuttal.

Normally, people wouldn't be so eager to put this on display. They would find it embarrassing to be blocked, taken to ANI's and, above all, filling up talk pages with pages and pages of circular arguments and restating the same thing over and over. You seem to revel in it and seek out people to inflict it on. What does that do for you? Answer that please. V7-sport (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but i do not answer questions regarding your ad hominem. Please concentrate on the content. If you still disagree about the content issue that we should go to the next step of using one of the dispute resolution processes that WP provides. IQinn (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(note: I removed the collapse template. If you're going to collapse, then you need to have the self-discipline not to edit inside it. You realise that you'll both likely end up blocked if you keep bickering like this, yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC))

note: W7-sport just added another link of a terror plot to the "See also" section what i think is extremely WP:POINTy as there is an ongoing dispute on the talk page about the issue if this section (almost as long as a third of the article) violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV. Let's be clear he hasn't been convicted of anything. I must say i found that very disruptive. IQinn (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I added another link to the see also page. to another domestic islamist attempted attack. It's related, it's inclusion is valid. It certainly doesn't "violate BLP" or WP:Point, it's just a link. If you think adding a link is "disruptive" then you are on the wrong website. Indeed, the accusation is laughable. V7-sport (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've stripped out the vastly over-extended see-also section. That isn't how you do see-alsos. I agree with Iq here: that looks like a WP:COATRACKy guilt-by-association type of thing. The "its just a link" argument is no good. See-also sections are not there just to accrete stuff; material there should ideally be folded into the article, if possible. But if not possible, is a cnadidate for removal William M. Connolley (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. They are definitely related items.

A category for this stuff might make more sense.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree also. When you write " That isn't how you do see-alsos" it was in fact a cut and paste of another related article. Indeed,it has been pared down. They are definitely related. The coatrack essay doesn't say anything about "see also" sections. V7-sport (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed a few links, however these are definitely related (which is the criteria) and there are in fact a lot more that could be added. Randy is correct in saying that a category for islamist attacks and attempted attacks on the USA would make a lot of sense. V7-sport (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a category would indeed make far more sense; so do that, instead of restoring the see-also section. COATRACK applies to all sections of the article, see-also included, obviously. If the material is so closely related that you can plausibly add it into the actual article, then do. But a vague list of "related" stuff isn't good William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, So I reduced the see also category and you pulled down the entire thing. What was up there isn't a "vague list", they are incidents that are related to the article. Please state, specifically, what part of the coatrack essay you think applies here. You have pulled off the entire "see also" section, which has absolutely no basis in wiki policy. Re. "If the material is so closely related that you can plausibly add it into the actual article, then do." Is it your position that Wiki articles can't have see also sections? V7-sport (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Connolley, he got it right a vague list of "related" stuff isn't good. Especial in this biography were WP:BLP does apply. I agree with Randy and Connolley that a category should be created for the large number of related stuff. I just added Category:Failed terrorist attempts, more to come. IQinn (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Find some kind of policy that states that there can't be a see also section before you delete it. V7-sport (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

V7 Stop constant reverting. There is no consensus. That is disruptive. IQinn (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment on the content dispute. I find I agree with William M. Connolley that the See also section violates WP:COATRACK, and that material should not be added here unless it could conceivably be included in the main body of the article. In the absence of evidence that this applies I think it should be removed. The pointless bickering needs to stop too; once you have registered your disagreement with each other, the rest is just noise and makes it harder to read the bits that are about improving the article. Please stop, both of you. --John (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How John, specifically, does this violate WP:coatrack? (Essays are not Wikipedia policies.) "And that material should not be added here unless it could conceivably be included in the main body of the article." What's the point of a "see also" section then? Seriously? V7-sport (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, as WP:SEEALSO points out, a perfect article might indeed not have a See also section at all. WP:COATRACK might not be policy, but WP:BLP is, and I would caution you that more care needs to be taken when editing articles on living people. --John (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Well, as WP:SEEALSO points out, a perfect article might indeed not have a See also section at all" Show me a perfect wiki article. Additionally what was listed was linked were other acts of terrorism/jihad committed by Americans, it makes perfect sense to link them. Stripping the entire See Also section relates to BLP how? V7-sport (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

See also: User talk:John § V7-sport again

2011 Fort Hood shooting

Should a page of that name be created in lieu of the "Naser Jason Abdo" page or in addition to it? What seems more notable is the plot itself, not the individual, who is only notable because of said plot. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Perhaps when this generates more press there will be both as in the Fort Hood Shooting. I certainly wouldn't object to that. V7-sport (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagree - see discussion below about paying attention to classification by law enforcement.Parkwells (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

V7 just re-added the removed "See also" section (that is discussed above) again and again. He has a long history of edit warring. When will he ever learn? IQinn (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Find some kind of policy that states that there can't be a see also section before you delete it. Otherwise stop disrupting. V7-sport (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That is under discussion above. Stop edit warring. You have a very long block log for edit warring already and it seems to be the case that you have learned nothing form it. IQinn (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Just show the policy. Amazing that you bring it up when you have a long block log for edit warring. Guess you didn't read the WP:Boomerang link.V7-sport (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The content is discussed above. At no point in this dispute was i edit warring but you are. I have learned from the past but you did not. You are still edit warring and you are edit warring with a large number of editors. You have learned nothing. That is very disruptive. IQinn (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not edit warring, you consider 2 to be a "large number"? There is no consensus to remove the see also section. It is perfectly in keeping with nearly all other see also sections in this series. V7-sport (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

One time is already to much once a topic is under discussion on the talk page. You are clearly edit warring. That is subject of the content discussion here on the talk page. You constantly reverting the section while it is under discussion on the talk page. That is exactly what we call edit warring. It disrupts our work here and you have been blocked for it multiple times and you have been warned countless times and you did not learn anything. IQinn (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is the policy? V7-sport (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:GAME - WP:EDITWARRING IQinn (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OK...So I'll add the WP:there are no "see also" sections allowed anymore to the list of wikipedia policies that you alone seem to recognize. V7-sport (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Content issue is under discussion above. Is this your justification for edit warring? Oh... You are disrupting the discussion through edit warring and you have been blocked frequently for that in the past. You have learned nothing, again, this is simply disruptive. IQinn (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a "discussion" when you answer the questions posed, not when you simply state the same non-answer when you are asked to provide some policy based reason. V7-sport (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your answer does not make sense and after edit warring you are getting pointy now. IQinn (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

After being disruptive through edit warring over a spammed vague list of "related" stuff "See also" section V7-sport gets pointy and starts creating similar problematic "See also" sections on other articles. Oh b... [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]... It concerns the same issue we are still discussing here. A lot of the newly added links are already in these articles already or they are just a vague list of "related" stuff. Exactly what we are discussion here.

That is a very bad thing to do while this topic including the suggestion to created a new category is under discussion. It is a perfect example of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and that after the repeated edit warring. How far do we let him go. I do think we have seen enough of his disruptive behavior with not sign of stopping it despite repeated warnings and blocks. IQinn (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Good thing you have given up any pretense of not wikihoundng. (I wont bother linking) The question that you have not answered is by what policy are we not allowed to have see also sections. Don't know how much clearer I can make that so it makes sense to you. V7-sport (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikihounding, laughable and false as it has been shown. You are edit warring and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

1) Stop edit warring.

2) Stop Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

You are disrupting our work here. You have been warned. You have been blocked. How far will you go? IQinn (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The question that you have not answered is by what policy are we not allowed to have see also sections. Don't know how much clearer I can make that so it makes sense to you. V7-sport (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The content issue is under discussion above and while that is the case you start edit warring and disrupting us WP:POINT as shown. That is the topic and that is disruptive. Unfortunately you do not want to listen. IQinn (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So... there is no policy to that effect and this is just an embarrassingly lame attempt to inflict a little grief. Check. V7-sport (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Content issue is discussed above and for this here there is WP:GAME - WP:EDITWARRING. Your snarky comment is also not helpful. Stop edit warring and do not disrupt Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. That is the issue here. When will you listen? IQinn (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Texas Birth Index, 1903-1997 about Naser Jason Jamal Abdo Name: Naser Jason Jamal Abdo Date of Birth: 1 Apr 1990 Gender: Male Birth County: Dallas Father's Name: Jamal Rateb Abdo Mother's Name: Carlisa Morlan Roll Number: 1990_0001

View original image

up arrow Save This Record Attach this record to a person in your tree as a source record, or save for later evaluation. Save

Source Information: Ancestry.com. Texas Birth Index, 1903-1997 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005. Original data: Texas Birth Index, 1903-1997. Texas: Texas Department of State Health Services. Microfiche. Ryoung122 18:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Pay attention to law enforcement views

Fort Hood has not been characterized by DOD as a terrorist event, but as an incident of workplace violence, pending the court martial of Hasan. Also, contemporary accounts of Hasan suggest longstanding concerns about his mental stability.

The US Attorney in this Abdo case likened the private's plan to mass murders that took place in 2012, not to terrorism: he referred to the 2012 Aurora shooting (which appears to have been caused by a mentally ill man) and a mass killing by a white supremacist (and Army veteran forced out on a general discharge) at a Sikh temple, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. The Abdo case has psychological aspects of fragging - aggrieved soldiers attacking others from resentment. Abdo did not plan the attack until after having been charged with possession of child pornography; it looked as if he was at risk for a dishonorable discharge through a court martial, which would have adversely affected his life prospects. He then went AWOL, adding to his problems. It looks as if as an individual, he went off the deep end and was attempting revenge, despite his yelling on the way out of the court to claim religious affiliation with Muslim issues. No evidence has been publicized that he was following terrorist websites or belonged to a terrorist group. Editors have to be wary of over-determination in classification of violent incidents involving Muslims.

There seems too much readiness by WP editors (and others) to label every incident of violence with a Muslim participant as terrorism, but law enforcement officials are making distinctions and do not agree. In the 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting, for instance, the prosecutor said, after the self-serving talk, it was "just an awful killing, like a lot of other killings we have." Parkwells (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering that Abdo himself defined the US Army as being engaged in a "war against Islam," spoke of "avenging" Abeer Qassim al-Janabi and compared himself to Nidal Hasan, it is quite obvious that he was acting on Islamist motivations.

Soldiers who "fragged" other soldiers didn't randomly target anyone in a uniform. They went after the officers and NCOs who they blamed for their circumstances. Abdo didn't attempt to build a bomb and use it against the rear element of his unit at Fort Campbell, or against the higher elements of his chain of command who were located at Fort Campbell and were responsible for his being charged for possession of child porn. Instead Abdo travelled more than 800 miles, to a completely separate military installation, and attempted to attack other junior enlisted soldiers, not those in leadership positions, let alone his leaders.

There is a persistent obsession with some people to deny that Islamist terrorism exists. Trying to describe Abdo as anything other than an Islam-motivated terrorist ignores the plain simple facts of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Naser Jason Abdo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110919145858/http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/072911-terror-suspect-grew-up-in-broken-garland-home to http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/072911-terror-suspect-grew-up-in-broken-garland-home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)