Talk:Naser Jason Abdo

External links

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

" 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)