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