Jump to content

Talk:Sharif Fati Ali Al Mishad

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

Identity

[edit]

An edit with the edit summary "removed the 'Identity' section with the "Captive 190..." as it is dehumanizing and even with another title it is WP:OR" did in fact remove the "identity" section -- contrary to a discussion over what to do with the identity section last fall.

I commented on an identical excision at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salah_Bin_Al_Hadi_Asasi&diff=prev&oldid=346297774. Geo Swan (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

This edit removed valid and useful wikilinks with the edit summary "rv - sure links can be useful - but have a close look at the two links that i have removed - they link terrible wrong to "Al-Qaeda safe house" What is not very useful here)".

The excising wikipedian hasn't explained why they consider the wikilinks "terribly wrong" and "not very useful".

Over a hundred captives have had their detention justified because they stayed in a suspect guest house or safe house. Readers who only read this article can click on the link to get some context on this allegation. Geo Swan (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to disrupt Wikipedia considering similar posts to other talk pages you might have a look at this WP:POINT.
Did you check where the links go? Have you noticed that they link to Al-Qaeda safe house?
To link "Taliban safe house" and "Arab guest house" in the primary source allegation to "Al-Qaeda safe house" is irresponsible. I am removing these links now and you are welcome to bring it to the WP:BLP/N. IQinn (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary said the links were "terrible wrong". I asked you to explain why you considered them problematic. In reply you called those wikilinks "irresponsible". I request you please try harder to offer a policy-based explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know i am not a fan of wikilawyering what is a form of gaming the system i leave this up to other editors. This is perfectly explained and indeed these links were terrible wrong and that kind of linking as it occured is irresponsible as misleading connections have been drawn. IQinn (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When our material complies with the neutral point of view it should not matter what conclusions our readers draw. If you are claiming the material itself lapses from the neutral point of view then please specifically state how you think it lapses. Stephen Colbert joked that "reality has a liberal bias". If your concern is that neutral coverage of WP:RS leads readers to draw "misleading connections" then you yourself are lapsing from the neutral point of view. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop wikilawyering and gaming the system. To link "Taliban safe house" and "Arab guest house" in the primary source allegation to "Al-Qaeda safe house" is irresponsible. Stop spreading your misleading propaganda. IQinn (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I dispute that I have been wikilawyering here, or anywhere else.
For the record I dispute that my edits have been irresponsible. I continue to think that having asserted that these links were "terribly wrong" User:Iqinn has an obligation to explain why they consider them "terribly wrong" -- otherwise I think they rest of us must see their concern as an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
For the record I continue to be very concerned by the use of the term "primary source" to describe the OARDEC summaries. I have explained to User:Iqinn, many times, why I consider these summaries to be secondary sources, and User:Iqinn has not seen fit to offer counter-arguments, so I can't help but wonder whether this is another instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be also careful with name calling as it is uncivil WP:Uncivil. These documents are primary sources as i and other editor have explained to you. I know you do not like that but please listen to the community. These links where terrible wrong and they have been corrected. No sources primary or secondary that draw the connection between the mentioned "Taliban safe house" and "Arab guest house" in the allegations and Al-Qaeda. IQinn (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sharif Fati Ali Al Mishad. 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) 05:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharif_Fati_Ali_Al_Mishad&oldid=1200658665"