Talk:Arkin Mahmud

removal of information

The "Identity" section had this passage that i have removed for the following reasons: 1) The introduction of this passage does not make clear the real source for the text. 2) It is based on a questionable redacted primary source. 3) The introduction to this text presents the information as "brief biography" what i do not see as given. 4) The text includes allegation that needs multiply sources for verification. 5) The introduction to this text states that the source asserted: (all Uighur) "they where all caught at an "ETIM training camp". I do not see that a given in this reference. It may be the interpretation of the WP editor. I have strong concerns to present this information in the way it has been done here. Please discuss. IQinn (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

1) If the introduction does not make something clear, fix it! :)

2) I'm unsure how the tribunal proceedings of the US military can be dubbed "questionable", we qualify all the statements explaining they're American allegations.

3) I re-loaded the 78-page document to which you are referring, the biography is absolutely present. Your failure to find it reminds of your failure last week to notice there were two pages to a cited document - and your subsequent attempt to remove sourced information from the article. Read things more closely before assuming sources are lying.

4) The text does not require multiple sources, it has a valid, reliable source which is reporting on itself. We are not using the military source to cite facts about the prisoner, we are using the military source to cite facts about the military's claims.

5) See #3. Your failure to read sources carefully is not cause to delete sourced information.

Reverted your removal of information, do not act again without consensus. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sherurcij you are edit warring! And you are acting against the consensus of the whole Wikipedia community!

You have re-inserted controversial negative material into this BLP of a living person.

You have done this against the fact that the editor who has removed it has stated his BLP concerns clearly in the edit history and talk page.

You have not waited until consensus would have been achieved for re-inclusion.

Your edit summary and the five points you list here as your response to my concerns are mostly wrong. The material is controversial and problematic and i am willing to discuss this in an orderly manner.

I have checked the article, sources and your comment again carefully. I still have strong concerns.

It is strong consensus on Wikipedia to remove and not to re-insert material that has been marked as possible problematic by other editors.

I ask you in a friendly way to end your edit war and to remove this controversial negative material from this BLP article now until things for re-inclusion and way of presentation has been discussed and solved.

In this article you have also removed a tag and you have reverted another edit where the quotes have been put into the Quotation template. IQinn (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I believe this discussion at BLPN is relevant here too. Geo Swan (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Stop spreading misleading information to talk pages. You are linking to a biased OUT OF CONTEXT part of the discussion. You are free to link to the discussion but this link is misleading and your behavior is uncivil and disruptive. Please stop this. IQinn (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Following the complaint above, I replaced the diff above to what was then the last comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to what is now your last comment. If you want readers to go to whatever is your current last comment in that discussion, please just place a diff to your last comment there in your comments here -- and skip implying that my comments are in bad faith.
  • I didn't place a wikilink to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Does BLP proscribe quoting what JTF-GTMO wrote about Abu Bakker Qassim? for three reasons.
    1. That wikilink would go 404 when that thread was archived. The diff is permanent.
    2. You have a habit of changing the names of sections headings. Perhaps you don't realize that this breaks wikilinks to that subsection. But it does.
    3. I honestly regarded that diff as the last word. If you think you have new counter-points you can add to the that discussion please add them.
  • Please be more careful about stating or implying that other contributors are acting in bad faith when they try to paraphrase what they thought you really meant. Geo Swan (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)