User talk:Geo Swan/Userified 2011-01/Abdul Razzak Hekmati

{{WPBiography |listas=Hekmati, Abdul Razzak |living=no |class=start |priority=high }} {{WikiProject United States |class=start |importance=low }} {{WikiProject Afghanistan |class=start |}}

revert unexplained edit -- see talk[edit]

Usama not Osama is the official DoD spelling. So I restored that.

Because, not bedause -- good catch.

The rest of the edites are unexplained -- value unclear.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Usama to Osama because it is the most common form used in English. Changing a reference to {{fact}} was explained. I changed the table into a list because

it is a list
the table form has more and harder to figure out code (Help:Lists#Tables), and
to make the list look cleaner.

If Usama is the CIA/FBI spelling, then reverting it – fine. The reference was fixed. However, I think the list was better as a list than as a table. There were also several typos fixed when I made the table into a list which are now back. -- kenb215 talk 05:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question...[edit]

I left a question about the change of his estimated date of birth from 1939 to 1929.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain more fully?[edit]

Could you please explain more fully the justification for this rather large excision?

Normally I would revert an excision this large that was unexplained, or merely explained in a brief comment in an edit summary. The contributor who made this excision left me a long note, on my talk page, that I don't really understand. I was in the process of posing some questions on their talk page, when I checked my watchlist and saw this excision.

Since this is where they made the excision maybe this is where they should try to provide a clearer explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 blocks of text that appear in several hundred articles about Guantanamo detainees, discussing Combat Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Board hearings. These blocks of text are commentary on those proceedings and the legal background to them, and are not specific to the individual prisoners about whom the articles in which they appear are written.

It is more appropriate to link to the relevant articles for the Combat Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Boards and remove the excess and non specific text from the articles concerned. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Initially, early articles didn't contain those paragraphs. This was a disservice to readers. Some readers expressed that they were confused. Other contributors showed they were confused, when they left comments on talk pages or {{afd}} that showed they didn't understand -- like referring to the captives as simple "Prisoners of War" -- when it remains the firmly held position of the Bush Presidency that the captives ARE NOT POWs. Geo Swan (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, you're using these paragraphs to comment on political issues. Sorry, WP is not a political soapbox. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to pause, and engage in dialogue. I wrote these paragraphs to be from a neutral point of view. If you think they are not from a neutral point of view.

You are almost alone. Practically everyone who read them has had no concern that they violated WP:NPOV. Of those who thought they were -- many of them had views based on serious misconceptions.

If, for the sake of argument, you were correct that these paragraphs did not comply with NPOV, you should (1) be specific as to how these paragraphs do not comply with NPOV. (2) Engage in meaningful dialogue as to how to rewrite them to comply with NPOV.

So, how seriously am I supposed to take the initial concern you expressed, that the paragraphs were redundant? I put it to you that they can't both be redundant AND a violation of NPOV.

I put it to you that your comment that the Guantanamo captives were PRISONERS in a JAIL strongly suggests that you are not really as informed on this issue as you think -- illustrating that the paragraphs really do add necessary context. Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had serious concerns about POV of every article about a Guantanamo prisoner that I have seen. The articles seem to have other problems as well.

JimCubb (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

counterpolicy[edit]

Leaving all other concerns aside, I believe this edit is counter-policy, because section heading are not supposed to contain section headings. Geo Swan (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Style#Section headings says:

Avoid using links inside headings themselves (e.g.==Roman colonization==). Instead, link from the first occurrence of the term in the prose of the section.

The wikipedia contributor who made these excision made the same excisions to dozens of articles, and put wikilinks in the section headings of all of them. Geo Swan (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]