User talk:Iqinn

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)

Updates

Do you think it would be worthwhile to add a template similar to {{Birth date and age}}, allowing us to insert it into each prisoner's bio, so that it automatically says "As of [today], he has been held for [x] years, [y]months" or something? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 11:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Geo Swan has worked on something like that and you might contact him how to do it. Could be done but would not have the highest priority for me at the moment often it is better to keep things simple. The numbers of prisoner still detained has gone down and will further decrease. IQinn (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

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. [1], [2]. 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. [3], [4] 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)

Guest house, Kandahar

I have removed your Redirects for Deletion tag from Guest house, Kandahar. I did this because you the nomination never got added to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 3, and you never gave a reason for deletion. If you still think this redirect needs to be deleted, feel free to renomijate it, making sure that the nomination gets listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 22. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

WRT your assertions that: "...other contiributors already explained to you..."

On many occasions, when I have asked you which wikidocument, or established convention authorized an action or assertion you made you have responded by telling me you didn't have to explain yourself, because other wikipedia contributors had already explained this to me.

You made an assertion similar to this, here.

"Sure he did it in good faith but multiple other editors told him that many of his contributions are indeed WP:OR but he did not listen for many years and kept filibustering until just recently where he admitted that a large number of his edits are indeed based on WP:OR."

Contributing to the wikipedia is a serious project for me, and for most other contributors, who understand that contributing to the wikipedia can be hard work. I've asked you, on many occasions when you have claimed you don't have to answer my questions, because other contributors have already answered me, to:

1. provide diffs to these earlier answers;
2. to cut and paste the key passages from these earlier answers;
3. to paraphrase the key points from memory.

I don't believe you have ever offered a meaningful response to these requests.

IMO I am entitled to ignore assertions that someone (who?) has already provided me with good answers (where?) to my questions and concerns, on the basis that these kinds of assertions are not consistent with our obligations to engage in serious, civil, collegial discussion.

Yes, you are not the only person to have had concerns over my contributions to the Guantanamo related articles. Over the last five and a half years I have received what I regard as a very moderate number of challenges, given the controversial nature of the topic, and how prolific I have been.

I believe my record shows that I have generally acheived my goal of remaining open to the possibility I am and my correspondent correct, each time I read a challenge or concern. I believe my record shows that I do openly acknowledge when civil correspondents have made good points. I believe my record shows that I do openly acknowledge when I realize I have made mistakes.

My recollection is that many of the contributors who express concerns or questions about my contributions do not acknowledge my reply answered all their concerns, they just go away.

1. A minority of my challengers acknowledge I made convincing points and that they are satisfied.
2. A minority of my challengers go on record and state that I didn't convince them, but they don't have the time or interest to continue discussing the issue.
3. A minority don't respond to the discussion in a meaningful, collegial fashion. Instead they pick out other articles I started, and start nominating articles I started for deletion.

The great Will Rogers used to say that it wasn't what we didn't know that got us into trouble, it was "what we know, that just ain't so". I have suspected that many of the contributor who go on record that they remain unconvinced have run our of intellectually rigourous responses. Some people can't admit mistakes.

These instances where you assert you remember other contributors having offered me convincing answers to my questions and concerns -- since you can't tell me where these counter-arguments you remember being so convincing were, and you can't paraphrase them, why shouldn't I assume I offered meaningful replies to each of them?

So, I am going on record here. If you assert any variation of "...other contiributors already explained to you...", but you don't provide a diff to the earlier discussion, or paraphrase its key points, I am going to provide a link, there, to this comment, here. Geo Swan (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)