Jump to content

Talk:Shawali Khan

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

explain restoration of excised material

[edit]

I reverted what I see as some poorly explained excisions.

About a dozen valid and useful wikilinks were excised with the edit summary that claimed it was clarifying and unlinking questionable sources.

The contributor who makes this claim removed wikilinks to member of the Taliban, associated with al Qaida, and about a dozen similar characterizations of individual ties to the Taliban, or al Qaida. This contributor performed 250 similar wikilink excisions. Most of them with the same otherwise unexplained edit summary: "clarify and unlink interpretation of questionable source". In over half those instances they not only excised these wikilinks, but dozens of unrelated wikilinks.

The very active contributor has failed to explain what they think is a "questionable source", and what policy they think authorizes them to remove wikilinks based on their perception that a source is "questionable". So I do not agree that they are fulfilling their obligation to engage in discussion.

The WP:Reverting#When to revert essay has advice on this. I think it is good advice:

If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change.

Because they didn't offer a meaningful, substantive, policy-based justification for removing thousands of wikilinks I felt I was authorized to restore the status quo. I have reverted this wikilink excision, as I come across articles where it took place.

And the very active contributor has reverted me -- with the IMO misleading justification that the issue is "under discussion". The very active contributor has given a justification, of sorts, but, IMO, it is not a meaningful, substantive, policy-based explanation. Basically they claim the wikilinks they most object to give undue weight to allegations that haven't been proven.

Here are diffs to the 250 instances of basically unexplained removal of valid and useful wikilinks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250

This article has a picture of the CSR Tribunal trailer. The very active contributor didn't like the original caption, which I drafted. I don't own the caption, and am happy to engage in meaningful dialogue over changing or replacing the images caption with something better. But the caption the very active contributor replaced it with is simply inaccurate. I have explained this in detail, elsewhere.

I cited many references documenting that ALL the Tribunals captives attended were held in small trailers. The very active contributor challenged my description that the captives were always shackled during their tribunals -- but this too is documented.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your edit war, ad hominum attacks and misleading false post to talk pages. These links concern various issues that have been discussed on your talk page and elsewhere. The only very active user here is yourself who has written all the thousand Guantanamo articles by himself and who has claimed WP:Ownership over these articles. Please stop your disruptive behavior! IQinn (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your recollection that you have provided meaningful and substantive answers is reliable then it should be no problem for you to provide genuine diffs to those meaningful and substantive answers.
Please don't supply any more phony diffs -- please don't supply any links that look like genuine diffs but are actually the full urls to ordinary wikilinks, enclosed within single brackets. Those links are totally worthless to any reader who wants to figure out if you have actually provided a genuine, meaningful, substantive policy based response.
Alternatively, cutting and pasting the key passages of your meaningful, substantive, policy based explanation.
Specifically, I think you need to explain which policy, guideline, or convention authorizes you to excise wikilinks because you, personally, think they rely on a questionable source.
I think you need to explain which policy, guideline, or convention you relied on in reaching your conclusion these references were "questionable sources".
WRT the caption. Other captions are possible. Your caption was "Combatant Status Review Tribunals were usually held in a trailer." When the captives were present the Tribunals were always held in a trailer like that one. Your claims to the contrary are inaccurate and unreferenced. So I don't think I owe anyone an apology for reverting to a previous accurate and referenced caption. Any good faith contributor is free to discuss, here or elsewhere, their concern with my wording of the caption, or with your wording to the caption. Any good faith contributor is free to replace the current caption with an alternate if they genuinely feel it is an improvement.
Personally, I think a central discussion of the caption makes more sense than random replacement of particular instances.
I am going to wait 24 hours to give you a chance to look up the meaningful, substantive, policy-based passages you think justify your wikilink excision. Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geo Swan these topics have been discussed as you know and i would like to ask you to stop your edit war or to demand new explanation that have been already given and where you failed to provide valid meaningful arguments that supports your position or to disrupt the discussion with filibustering overlong responses and even worst to refuse to answer questions and refused to work towards consensus. Please stop your disruptive behavior. Here are some links :)) call them "phony" or whatever they are valid and bring you directly to the relevant information.
Here and here and May_i_ask_you... and May_i_ask_you_again.. and after that you started your revert war on multiple articles where i asked you again to continue the started discussions and to answer the questions you failed to do so instead you continue to edit warring like here on this page and many other pages. Please stop this. IQinn (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain the excision of new referenced material?

[edit]

In a recent edit User:Iqinn excised considerable new material, without any explanation, including:

  1. the {{infobox WoT detainees}}
  2. the section on Shawali's 2006 summary of evidence memo, and its reference
  3. the section on Shawali's 2007 summary of evidence memo, and its reference
  4. the section on the transcript from Shawali's 2007 review hearing, and its reference
  5. the section on Shawali's 2007 board's recommendation memos (I looked up the reference to the recommendation memos, but forgot to paste it in.)
  6. the proper full references to the original documents for Shawali's CSR Tribunal and 2005 hearing

None of us are mind readers here. I request User:Iqinn make a greater effort to offer meaningful, substantive, policy-based explanations for their edits. Geo Swan (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You do not need to be mind reader by reading the edit summary. User User:Geo Swan has reverted various edits that have been discussed and where he failed to provide meaningful arguments that supports his position. After these discussions had shown that his arguments are weak he refused to continue these discussions or to work towards consensus in any way, he started an edit war by reverting on multiple talk pages combined with ad hominum posts to talk pages. I have ask user User:Geo Swan to stop this disruptive behavior and to continue the already started discussions and to works towards consensus. He did not do this instead he continued his edit war like in this edit here. He had hidden the controversial revert inside an edit where he also added new material. I urge user User:Geo Swan to stop his disruptive behavior. He is free to add new material to the articles but he should not hide controversial reverts inside these edits and than go to the talk page to complain that the edit has been reverted as a whole. This behavior is very disruptive please stop it. IQinn (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WRT mind reading Iqinn's most recent edit summary was "rv - your have reverted multiple edits at once various of them are under discussion please stop your edit war". I will point out again that this edit summary does not address, at all, the six numbered points above. Neither does his reply, immediately above. I repeat my request that User Iqinn make a greater effort to explain his edits.
    • Yes, I reverted multiple edits. No, I cannot agree that these issues are "under discussion". The key assertion Iqinn has made in his 250 edit summaries was that he was "unlinking the interpretation of questionable sources" -- an assertion it seems to me Iqinn has made zero effort to discuss. Geo Swan (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally, I suggest it is simply inaccurate to claim I tried to "hide controversial reverts" -- when I specifically accompanied my edit with a civil, detailed explanation for those edits on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain the restoration of the problematic unattributed NYTimes quote?

[edit]

Last fall User:Iqinn made essentially the same problematic edit to something like 100 articles -- including this one.

The NYTimes has republished 16,000 pages of DoD documents, in what it calls its "Guantanamo docket" project. This must have been a lot of work. But the original documents are in the public domain, so they cna't claim any intellectual property rights to the republished material.

The NYTimes can calim intellectual property rights to any new material they wrote, to frame the republished material. And, for every captive they supplied a brief paragraph. They state the captives citizenship and age, and when the captive is still in Guantanamo they offered a sentence like the one User:Iqinn cut and paste here, without properly indicating it was a direct quote.

I told User:Iqinn my concerns:

  • This sentence constituted close to half of the NYTimes total intellectual property on Shawali. I told Iqinn that I thought rephrasing the information he had cut and paste would be acceptable. I told Iqinn that putting it in quotes, and prefacing the quote with: According to the Nyew York Times" would be acceptable. But I was concerned over cutting and pasting a quote that constituted close to half of the NYTimes' intellectual content.
  • I pointed out that we had automated tools for calculating durations, and that this was preferable to what they had done.
  • I pointed out that the quoted material would become dated. Iqinn promised to routinely update these passages -- but has not done so.

In January 2010 Iqinn initiated a thread on WP:Help desk. Everyone in that thread had the same concerns as I did. I think the consensus from that discussion was clear. I think the passage I used to replace Iqinn's problematic passage was fully in accord with that consensus.

Iqinn has taken absolutely zero steps to go back and correct the approximately 100 instances where they cut and paste NYTimes intellectual property without indicating it was a quote -- even though asking for advice at the WP:Help desk was their idea.

As I come across these problematic passages I fix them. I fixed this one last night. And Iqinn restored his original problematic wording today, without any explanations whatsoever.

I request an explanation for the restoration of this problematic material. Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say this is made quite clever. As above you have combined the editing of new material and the fix of this problem with the revert of edits that are controversial and that are part of your edit war in a single edit that would have been hard to revert partly. Just to misuse this instant to write a misleading ad hominum post against me. Once again stop this disruptive behavior. IQinn (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iqinn asked for advice at WP:Help desk. Uninvolved third parties offered him feedback that was essentially the same as the feedback I had previously given him. I am disappointed he didn't choose to take the feedback of uninvolved third parties seriously enough to clean up after himself.
I plan to continue to correct these unattributed direct quotes of the NYTimes intellectual property with a replacement that complies with the consensus of the WP:Help desk discussion, as I come across instances. Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed of User Geo Swan's continued uncivil posts to talk pages and i would like to ask him to re-read WP:civil and to stop this, as the Wikipedia community does not tolerate such undesirable behavior. IQinn (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Shawali Khan. 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) 06:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shawali_Khan&oldid=1195308467"