Talk:Abdul Haddi Bin Hadiddi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Could you please explain...[edit]

In this edit, with an edit summary of "clarify and unlink interpretation of questionable source", another contributor removed a bunch of valid and useful wikilinks.

I think this kind of extensive and controversial edit requires further explanation on the article's talk page. In particular I think that explanation should include a clear explanation of why the excising contributor consider the source "questionable".

This contributor has similarly excised valid and useful wikilinks from several articles. I don't care if they offer a single explanation, somewhere. But I am leaving this note here, so that the need to deal with this issue in this article doesn't get forgotten. Geo Swan (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Already explained here and here. I have told you that here and here. It is also in this post where i have ask you about that and other open questions. You have not answered my questions concerning these content issues nor have answered many of these posts at all. As well as many others posts concerning content issues. I would like to ask you not to ignore questions and to work more constructive to solve the outstanding issues. Cheers IQinn (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
You offer four links, and I take at face value that you honestly regard these as sufficient answers. But, nevertheless, I don't find them to be meaningful answers. In your first link about you wrote:

"Here it is: These links created by you are inside a direct quote from a questionable (often redacted) document. Interpretation of these documents can not be done by WP editors. With these links you have created many association that are simply based on your interpretation of these questionable documents."

I have told you that I am concerned over your continued use of the phrase "questionable source". Your explanation, above, looks like circular reason. It looks like you are saying I should recognize that these are "questionable" simply because you say they are questionable. Geo Swan (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
First of all let me assure you that there is no circular reason here at all.
You once again are ignoring discussions that are already started, explanations that have already been given and questions that have been ask. I must say i find this very disruptive and it has and is blocking other editors from improving these articles.
Please continue relevant discussions and answer the questions of other editors. Do not just refer to the first link and ignore the other. Now i have ask you already a few times over weeks to continue discussions and to answer my questions.
I am asking you again to go back and to continue the relevant discussions and to answer my questions. I have given you the links above and i will give them to you again. here here here Thank you IQinn (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)