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)

License tagging for File:FOB Ramrod kill team soldiers.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:FOB Ramrod kill team soldiers.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked again

You've been blocked again, this time for edit warring on the same page you just came off a block for edit warring from, without even bothering to use the talk page. This is your third block in a month. Please take note of WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, or you are liable to end up with a topic ban or an outright community ban soon. You are free to appeal your block with the {{unblock}} template, but please make note of WP:GAB - accusing me of bias and calling this block unfair will not get you unblocked by anyone else; rather, contrition will. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

There was no edit warring. This was almost all new material and all the editing concerns multiple issues. Just have a look at one of the last edits where he removed material with the claim not in the given source i then simply re-add the information and tell him that it is in the guardian.co.uk that is provided. That is not edit warring and he could have just added the "not in source tag". Same with this edit where he removed valid information without providing even an edit summary. There are tons of sources that can be easily found as reference. He should have added the "CN" tag by best and it is not edit warring to re-add valid sourced information the first or second time. I ask you to reconsider as there was no edit warring and a block is not helpful at all in writing this story. Actually the article just started to grow and there was nothing in the last edits that would exceed a natural back forward to expect for such an controversial topic. Have a look at my links and please reconsider so that we can write that story. IQinn (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Repeatedly reverting another editor is edit warring. By now, you should know that. Feel lucky Magog noticed it first ... my inclination would have been to block you for a much longer period. You and Iquinn need to stop hitting the undo button as a substitute for editing.—Kww(talk) 02:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Kww just put out a thread instead of addressing my arguments and given diffs. So i am requesting another admin to review and to address my arguments that are based on real diffs in contrast to the allegation. IQinn (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You say "There was no edit warring" and then proceed to tell us about how you repeatedly reverted someone else's edits in an article. I'm not quite sure how to make this plain to you , but that is exactly what "edit warring" means. For an inexperienced editor to not realise that would be understandable, but how an editor with four blocks, every one of them for edit warring, can still not understand it, beats me. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is basically "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right", so explaining that you think you were right is irrelevant. I agree 100% with Kww: I would have blocked for much longer than 48 hours. If you continue in the same way then sooner or later you will be blocked for a long period, perhaps indefinitely. (Incidentally, I have no idea what "put out a thread" means. I guess that it is some colloquial expression used where you live, but since you are trying to communicate with English speaking people who could come from anywhere in the world you are more likely to be understood if you stick to standard English.) JamesBWatson (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Well, your justification and proof seems to be that you think that i state in my reasons for unblock that i was repeatedly reverting other editor. That is false and if you have a close look at the diffs that i have provided you will find that only one of the diffs i provide is a revert and it is not edit warring. It would be helpful and just and standard for a civil conversation if someone could base their decision on real diffs instead of words put i someones mouth they not even said. I kindly request an admin that bases his/her decision on actual diffs. IQinn (talk) 10:33 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

You have three consecutive reversions on the article among everything else. 3RR is not an entitlement - edit warring under the three revert limit is still edit warring, and it is obvious you have plenty enough context to be well aware of that. Furthermore, your editorializing in the comment summary seems to strongly indicate you are wading in with a specific opinion you want to support here, which is not an acceptable stance in editing. A Wikipedia editor should generally recuse himself/herself from subjects in which s/he cannot remain impartial. - Vianello (Talk) 03:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No, I based declining your unblock request on the fact that you ahd made several reverts on the same page in a short period, which I ascertained by looking at your editing history. I did not think it necessary to point out that you had been reverting, because you had said so yourself (e.g. "i then simply re-add the information"). And I couldn't care less how many of the diffs you provided were reverts: I found plenty for myself. I don't know what you think "revert" means: you seem to think it means something different from "simply re-add the information". JamesBWatson (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

see below IQinn (talk) 4:42 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

"This is not edit warring," you say. Yes, it is. You may not have broken the three revert rule, but you certainly were involved in an edit war. Whether the edits are consecutive or not is immaterial. I assume you've heard this before, but I'll state it again: If your edits are contested by another editor, you are obliged to stop making those edits and to begin discussion on the article talkpage. As far as your request below, it would be considered meatpuppetry for another editor to make your preferred edits while you are blocked —DoRD (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note: explanations below moved out of the unblock template for clarity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

As per the provided diffs and explanation. In addition my reply to DoRD's comment. 1) Whether these edits are related is important and they are not. These were unrelated edits what the diffs show and there is nothing wrong in re-adding uncontroversial information together with the requested source. The other involved editor has already been unblocked because it has been shown that there was no edit war. 2) Asking for the inclusion of material where only the reference was missing and where the inclusion improves the article - and what is important - is an uncontroversial edit is surely not "meatpuppetry". The reference was missing and has been provided below. I once again ask an admin to perform this uncontroversial edit what i think is an reasonable request. Kind regards. IQinn (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your talk page access has been revoked. See you in 36 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well it has been claimed that this would have been edit warring (1) three (2) consecutive (3) reversions.

If you have a close look at these links and the edits in context of the editing history than it becomes clear that this is not the case.

Only the first and last edit are even connected.

(1) In the first edit i add valid information to the article that is sourced in the given source "guardian.co.uk"

(other editor) removed that (the "not in source" tag would have been the right choice)

(3) I re-add the valid and sourced information - with an edit summary that tells the remover that this is actually in the source and it is really easy to find and it is there and is easily to find.

The second diff that has been provided is not related at all.

(other editor) removes valid information in an unrelated section without edit summary. (edit summary and "CN" tag were not used)

(2) I re-add the valid information with the edit summary that this is valid information.

(other editor) deletes the same information again ("CN" tag would have been the right choice)

I did not revert this deletion instead i goggled up one of the tons of sources that can easily been found for this information.

That is not edit warring.

I request unblocking based on the provided diffs and explanation and i request that one of the admins who spent quite to much time in blocking people for little or no reason to at least add this information to the article together with one of the references that i have provided. I deeply care about Wikipedia and i think that is a reasonable request. Regards IQinn (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am not sure whether it is worth trying to explain to you, as you seem to have failed to understand every expalanation given to you before, but here is one last try.

1. If you put back information that was once in an article but has been removed, then that is a revert. It doesn't matter whether you think you were right to do so, it is a revert. A "revert" means just restoring some part of the article to the same, or nearly the same, as it was before. It does not mean restoring part of the article in a wicked or evil way, or restoring unsourced content, nor does it have to be restoring to a version which you personally had edited. In fact it does not even have to be on an article you have ever edited before.
2. If you have made a revert on an article, and you later put some content which has been removed back into the article, then that is a second revert. It does not have to be the same information as you made in your first revert, nor in any way connected to it.
3. Likewise if you then put back removed information into the article again, it is another revert, whether or not it is related to either or both of the other reverts you have made.
4. If you keep on making reverts to the same article it is called "edit warring". It does not matter whether the edits you made were good or bad, sourced or unsourced, etc etc. (Pretty well the only exception is reverting vandalism.)
5. If you edit war you can be blocked.

Did you make several reverts to the same article? Yes. "Only the first and last edit are even connected" is totally irrelevant. What matters is that you made several reverts to the same article, whether those reverts were connected with one another or not. "I re-add the valid and sourced information" is irrelevant, and so is "with an edit summary that tells the remover that this is actually in the source". Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is not "don't edit war unless you have sources and provide edit summaries", it is (essentially) "don't edit war".

You seem to have several misunderstandings about what "revert" and "edit war" mean. As I indicated above, I find it difficult to understand how someone with your history can have such misunderstandings. (Actually it has just occurred to me, as I typed that last sentence: could it be that, despite all the warnings and blocks you have received for edit warring, you have never even read Wikipedia's edit warring policy? If you haven't then for goodness sake do, so that you can avoid making the same mistakes again.) If, after having read the attempt I have made to clarify the matter, and having read the policy, you still don't understand what edit warring is, then it seems you must lack the comptence to edit without making the same mistake again, and in that case your next block should probably be indefinite. However, I hope that is not so: I hope you can now understand what your mistakes were. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)