User talk:Iqinn

This editor is an
Experienced Editor
and is entitled to display this
Service Badge.

Mahmudiyah

Do you have any reliable sources speaking of a cover up? It seems the easiest way to cover it up would be to not charge the soldiers and keep everything hush, but if you have good sources then it should be added. Otherwise all I can find is several sources citing a birth cirtificate that was never produced, versus several sources estimating her age; I'm not sure unless there is clear evidence that one is right and the other is wrong that we can pick one and leave out the others...? Fuzbaby (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I just evaluated hundreds of sources again and with no doubt Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi (August 19, 1991 - March 12, 2006) was 14 when she was gang-raped and murdered. [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]], [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]]... Do you have any reliable source from 2009, 2008, 2007 that shows she was not 14? The wrongly claims she was older then 14 originates mainly from the early testimonies of the convicted rapists and murders. For example Steven Green guilty on all 17 counts and you can read the 17 counts here. Have a close look at the counts and you will probably understand what i mean with cover up. You can also find more information here, here and here. Do you still think we should not write she was 14 and instead repeat the false statements of the rapists and murders? Iqinn (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, after looking through them I agree with you. Best, Fuzbaby (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edit

Hi - I have a question as to why you removed the tag from the article on Nayif Fahd Mutliq Al Usaymi. I originally placed it there because the sources listed there are primary sources - in other words, there are no secondary sources that do more than trivially mention the subject of the article. The reason you listed as removing the tag seems to be the exact reason I placed the tag there in the first place? Thanks for clearing this up! BWH76 (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised because i can not remember that i have remove tags from this page. I usually do not remove tags that other people have placed. So i checked the history of the page. It could be that has removed them if you mean these removed tags. IQinn (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I just had another closer look at the article. I fully agree with you on the tag and have added the same tags to other articles with the same problem. User:Sherurcij has added the {ARB} template in the same edit. What automatically adds automatically one more ref to the article. But this ref is also a primary source and the subject of the article is not mention in it this article. IQinn (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - I just checked the article once again and see that you're exactly right. Sorry for the misunderstanding! BWH76 (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Animal Number 64

Could you please explain why you created a redirect under Animal Number 64 that pointed to Lahcen Ikassrien?

Animal Number 64 has no incoming links. And 64 is not even Lahcen Ikassrien's ISN.

I thought you were concerned that the Guantanamo captives shouldn't be dehumanized? Please explain how calling a captive an animal is consistent with your stand on dehumanization. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There are various methods how to dehumanize an individual, letting a prisoner wear a plastic bracelet that calls him "Animal number 64" get's an A+ on how to dehumanize an individual. But that is what happen to Lahcen Ikassrien when he was detained. Headline in secondary sources. And here are the links where you can find who dehumanized him. [21], [22]. IQinn (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There are still no incoming link to Animal Number 64. I anticipate other contributors are likely to either ask you to explain this redirect. Less patient and understanding contributors than I am may just nominate it for speedy deletion. This is less likely to happen if there are incoming links. Geo Swan (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about that this comes from highly reliable secondary sources. [23], [24] IQinn (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Uighur location

It's not all that important, but just for your own edification, you should know the Uighurs do not live in southern China, as you said in this edit. In fact, assuming that we can agree that "southern" China is the area below, say 30°N, and given that that area is almost 100% east of the Mekong, we find that the Uighurs, who live in the northwestern region of the People's Republic's territory, are actually located as far away across the country as possible from "southern" China. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My bad - you are of course absolutely right. I have corrected my comment there, i hope it is fine now. Thank's for telling me. IQinn (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No problema. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you comment on this article?

Iqinn: I made changes to Abdul Hafiz (Guantanamo detainee) based on the tags, removed the content fork, neutralized the article, etc. Can you make any other suggestions regarding this article? Thanks.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Good job. I am not sure how to further improve it. There aren't many sources. IQinn (talk)

Invitation to work on a possible RfC/U

I am working on a potential RfC/U about User:Geo Swan. The draft is located at User:Fram/Sandbox. I have used a discussion where you were involved as part of the evidence, and would like to invite you to go over the draft RfC and add or correct whatever you feel is necessary. Obviously, if you feel that an RfC/U is not appropriate or not the best step to take, feel free to let me know as well. Fram (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan, you are free to certify it, add an outside view, or otherwise comment as you see fit. Fram (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible socking by Papermoneyisjustpaper

• Papermoneyisjustpaper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has this been reported to WP:SPI for checkuser investigation??? Do you think it could be related to Geo Swan (talk · contribs)? You should probably please either report it to WP:SPI, or stop making allegations across multiple pages without having done so. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I went ahead and reported this to WP:SPI, now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geo Swan. It seems pretty conclusive on the behavioral evidence = consider that fully 100% of the AFDs commented at by the possible sock, were on articles previously created by Geo Swan. Perhaps you may have additional evidence to present? -- Cirt (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh...:) my reply came to late. But let me check more details now.... IQinn (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Before i read your FYI. No i did not report that. Papermoneyisjustpaper stopped editing 5-6 days ago after i pointed out that he might be a Sock puppet. It should be Sherurcij (talk · contribs) according to the way of editing and Afd argumentation and participation. Sherurcij is only indirect related to Geo Swan. :) They worked very closely together on Guantanamo (war on terror) related articles for many years. He was also in my opinion one reason why this section is a mess and cleaning up and improving was is almost impossible. He participated in most of the Guantanamo related Afd's until he stopped editing around May 2010. 98% chance that Papermoneyisjustpaper and Sherurcij are the same person. Too many details in the way the writing and argumentation went in the 5 recent Guantanamo related Afd's where he suddenly appeared. Not hard to spot for me as i have seen many of them in the past. I am not so into SPI and as he has stopped now and IP's change quickly... i am not sure if some actions are necessary now. But anybody who thinks some steps should be taken can of course go ahead. Feel free to ask me for further details if needed. Regards. IQinn (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I added to the SPI based on your comments, diff. Look okay? I guess the page could be moved to Sherurcij instead of Geo Swan as the master sock, but there is behavioral evidence for both. -- Cirt (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your page, as said i am not into SPI but it looks like your work is professional. Ask me for more details if needed. IQinn (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: Moved it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherurcij. Thoughts? Anything to add as far as more evidence and diffs and links? -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine for me. You are very professional. Cheers IQinn (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherurcij

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherurcij

This socking investigation case yielded  Confirmed results linking (7) sock accounts to each other, and they were all then indefinitely blocked. However, technical data on the suspected main sockmaster account, Sherurcij (talk · contribs) was stale, and the reviewing admin did not wish to block on the behavioral evidence alone. Do you think it is worthwhile to spend a bit more time going over the already  Confirmed and blocked sock accounts tied to each other, and link them back to the main suspected sockmaster account? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not much time at the moment. My editing skills are slow and i think it would not be worth the time. Should be fine for the moment. IQinn (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Iqinn, I tried to find stuff on this detainee, and can find nothing. Shabir (Bagram captive) If you can find anything, add it, otherwise, I simply do not think he's notable. Any thoughts on this? Thanks.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a look and just worked a bit on it. It looks to me that this is another of this articles mostly based on primary sources and speculations. Just started an Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabir (detainee) and you might want to have a look at it. Regards IQinn (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Check this out and comment if you like. [25]

--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, you might be interested in joining the Afd on Emilia Carr. I personally believe it is Keep for this in the very least a Weak Keep. But the more opinions the better.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Done!

Excellent work nominating that article for deletion! Keep up the good efforts! A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I review every edit on its merits, and only a select few are manly enough to receive a manliness award! A Very Manly Man (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Curious

Curious that an experienced editor would revert to restore an edit by a confirmed sock puppeteer, whose included random cites to "support" an edit that had no relation to the content and who uses WP:SPS, which are not considered reliable sources. After >10,000 edits you might WP:AGF don't ya think? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

AFG? I did not challenge your good faith. I just restored valid content that is already cited by the New York Times and where other cites can easily be found. WP:PRESERVE. Thanks for your work in fighting SP but i think you are mistaken in just blindly to remove valid content after you have been reverted two times by two different good faith editors, have a look at the content and WP:PRESERVE instead. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, well put yourself in my position for a second, dealing with a persistent sockpuppeter who has returned to create more than 10 named accounts in two days. Who generated a huge amount of spurious content, who names sources that have no relation to the content, who uses unsuitable fringe or conspiracy cites. The same editor who persistently added a BLP violation across multiple articles. Think for one second, just how much work was involved in clearing all that up and doing the SPI reports etc. Then add two editors who appear to be blindly reverting to restore content added by said prolific sock puppeteer, with edit summaries that appear to question my good faith. Both of you may care to think a little more about your edit summaries next time and to engage in the talk page as I did. The childish use of apostrophes was not helpful, neither are the lectures on policy. Neither help clear up a misunderstanding Wee Curry Monster talk 01:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit summaries were clear and the cited policies were helpful and nobody challenged your good faith. As said thanks for your great work in SPI but you were obviously wrong in this edit what is not a problem but please do not blame the one who told you that you were wrong that could become a problem. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Just reminding you again to avoid edit warring. All it does is annoy everyone involved and get you blocked, the underlying issue however is almost never resolved. Amalthea 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not edit warring when reverting someone close to a vandal and i am engaging in on the talk page of the articles to solve content issues. IQinn (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Five "undo"s in one hour over a content disagreement certainly is edit warring, WP:3RR only makes exceptions for very obvious vandalism. If this had gone to WP:ANI or WP:3RRNB you both would have been blocked, and that's just not worth it, in particular since the actual issue wouldn't be resolved by that (and your block would typically be longer since you've been blocked before for that). If you can't resolve a disagreement in edit summaries of three reverts, you need to stop reverting and discuss until you find a consensus, one way or the other. That very often sucks and seems like a waste of time, but on a collaborative project like this where we depend on openness nobody has found a better way yet. Amalthea 00:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I get your point but as far as i can see these 5 reverts do not concern the same issue and leave alone the fact that he removed whole sections of sourced material instead of fixing minor problems. Anyway. When does Wikipedia get editorial oversight? They hire a lot of people. In it's current form it is open for manipulation, misinformation and propaganda and set up to fail in the long run. IQinn (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The bright-line from 3RR refers to three reverts on one article in 24h, doesn't have to be the same issue.
Re editorial oversight, well, that's a very difficult topic. German Wikipedia has WP:Pending changes for all articles, to enforce oversight of newbie/anon edits, but that wouldn't help in cases like this. Citicendium tried to go all the way, but thus far they couldn't attract enough editors to make it go anywhere (probably for various reasons). Wikipedia certainly is as successful as it is because everyone can edit it. It's a controversial debate whether that model will continue to work, and a couple of incidents have made the weakness very obvious (Seigenthaler incident the most infamous I think). The current approach tends to generate a lot of heat and very little light on controversial topics, where editors with POVs clash. Those POVs often cancel each other out in the long run, I think, since those editors simply have to work it out and settle on a rather neutral version, but not always, and there's a lot of emotion and attrition involved.
If you have good ideas on how to balance the need to attract editors with getting high quality results I would recommend that you try and discuss at the WP:Village Pump or at http://strategy.wikimedia.org. I don't see that the WikiMedia Foundation will ever be willing or able to assume the role of editorial oversight though. Amalthea 16:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 00:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Let's continue our discussion at Category talk:Muslim converts convicted of terrorism#Discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 hours for edit warring, as you did at Talk:FOB Ramrod 'kill team'. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Iqinn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As stated in my replies to Magog the Ogre, Cla68. Nobody has the right to remove my civil content focused comment from the talk page. Surely not the editor whose arguments i just have invalidated and who is unhappy with that. He has no right to do that just because he fears that he loses an debate, it is vandalism and makes a civil debate impossible. He should provide compelling counter-arguments instead. I am actually one of the few editors who adds content to this highly notable article that is still in a very bad shape. So it would be good to unblock me so that i can continue to work on the article itself that i started today. Almost nobody works at the article and it looks almost like that people do not want that we tell this story. I think if you have a close look at the talk page you will also find that i was as civil as possible for a debate about a highly controversial topic and there is nothing that i would not say to my mother and there is no evidence whatsoever that i was uncivil. IQinn (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=As stated in my replies to Magog the Ogre, Cla68. Nobody has the right to remove my civil content focused comment from the talk page. Surely not the editor whose arguments i just have invalidated and who is unhappy with that. He has no right to do that just because he fears that he loses an debate, it is vandalism and makes a civil debate impossible. He should provide compelling counter-arguments instead. I am actually one of the few editors who adds content to this highly notable article that is still in a very bad shape. So it would be good to unblock me so that i can continue to work on the article itself that i started today. Almost nobody works at the article and it looks almost like that people do not want that we tell this story. I think if you have a close look at the talk page you will also find that i was as civil as possible for a debate about a highly controversial topic and there is nothing that i would not say to my mother and there is no evidence whatsoever that i was uncivil. [[User:Iqinn|IQinn]] ([[User talk:Iqinn#top|talk]]) 07:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=As stated in my replies to Magog the Ogre, Cla68. Nobody has the right to remove my civil content focused comment from the talk page. Surely not the editor whose arguments i just have invalidated and who is unhappy with that. He has no right to do that just because he fears that he loses an debate, it is vandalism and makes a civil debate impossible. He should provide compelling counter-arguments instead. I am actually one of the few editors who adds content to this highly notable article that is still in a very bad shape. So it would be good to unblock me so that i can continue to work on the article itself that i started today. Almost nobody works at the article and it looks almost like that people do not want that we tell this story. I think if you have a close look at the talk page you will also find that i was as civil as possible for a debate about a highly controversial topic and there is nothing that i would not say to my mother and there is no evidence whatsoever that i was uncivil. [[User:Iqinn|IQinn]] ([[User talk:Iqinn#top|talk]]) 07:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=As stated in my replies to Magog the Ogre, Cla68. Nobody has the right to remove my civil content focused comment from the talk page. Surely not the editor whose arguments i just have invalidated and who is unhappy with that. He has no right to do that just because he fears that he loses an debate, it is vandalism and makes a civil debate impossible. He should provide compelling counter-arguments instead. I am actually one of the few editors who adds content to this highly notable article that is still in a very bad shape. So it would be good to unblock me so that i can continue to work on the article itself that i started today. Almost nobody works at the article and it looks almost like that people do not want that we tell this story. I think if you have a close look at the talk page you will also find that i was as civil as possible for a debate about a highly controversial topic and there is nothing that i would not say to my mother and there is no evidence whatsoever that i was uncivil. [[User:Iqinn|IQinn]] ([[User talk:Iqinn#top|talk]]) 07:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Just to qualify: I didn't include it in the block summary, but the block is also in part due to incivility on the same page. Please read up on civility, and as a general rule, please don't say anything to someone on Wikipedia that you wouldn't want someone to say to your mother. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is actually already my rule and i can not find anything on that page that i would not say to my mother. Could please just quote that part. Would be interesting to know what you mean by that. I am eager to learn. IQinn (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn, please stop bickering so much with V7 on the Kill Team article talk page. If you two keep at it, I'll probably ask at ANI for an article and interaction ban for both of you. I gave V7 the same request and warning. Cla68 (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no "bickering" and i was not "bickering". Cla68 i also want to mention that you are an involved editor. I added a civil content focused reply that provides valid arguments and directly addresses the content issue and the comments and arguments of other editors. Nobody has the right to remove my comment and surely not the editors who are not happy that their arguments have been invalidated in that post. I think to block me for that is at least odd. IQinn (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn, Magog may have other examples or reasons, so I am not speaking for him, but one example from your reply on that talk page: asking "Are you drunk?" is not civil at all. Fram (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)