Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cooolway (talk | contribs) at 14:38, 19 March 2009 (→Too many pictures?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Was he paid by CSIS?

The July 15 CBC article is not clear on whether he was a PAID informant. - Mcasey666 00:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Since he claims he is still owed backpay, yes he was clearly being paid for his work. Sherurcij 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was a paid agent. MS

eMail address

Similar to the case of Zaynab Khadr, I'm not sure how to go about with the wikiformalities of when the subject of an article seems to want to include their contact details in the body of the article. Perhaps we should create a template for talk pages stating "The subject of the article, 'subject, has indicated that they are open to receiving communication from interested parties, at the following method of communication"? Sherurcij 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to this. Contact me: peacebeuntoyou@rogers.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.61.77 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Informant/Agent

Every source I've seen identifies Shaikh as having acted as a paid informant, including his own interview and self-outing. I think it's duplicitous to start referring to him as an "agent" halfway through the article. Changed to be consistent. Sherurcij 20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agent is a particular status, versus informant (former requiring court testimony, latter not) MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.61.77 (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation - would you agree that your status would be "informant" rather than "agent"? Sherurcij 05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Details

• He says he drove the group around in his (wired) van, did none of the others have a driversLicense/car? Sherurcij 11:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert edits by SHaikh

I'm sorry to be such a stickler, but I'm reverting Shaikh's most recent edits. You changed "several times he phoned an ambulance to attend to him after an overdose" to "once he phoned an ambulance to attend to him after an accelerated heart rate", even though the cited MacLeans article quotes you saying "There were a couple of times...". Now, it's possibly you were misquoted, or that the reporter is trying to smear you - but ultimately we have to assume that MacLeans magazine is less likely to be subjective than you are yourself - and that you did indeed tell them it happened "a couple of times". You also removed the fact that your rehabilitation costs were covered by the RCMP - even though it is a referenced fact. Again, while I know the media is certainly capable of error - you can understand why we can't accept the subject of an article changing facts without evidence. You added the statement "This would leave intact the evidence obtained while working however." which I'm not sure I understand, while working where? And who says it would remain intact? (It's the subject of a publication ban, I know - but without revealing what evidence, there should still be a lawyer referenced explaining why "evidence" will remain admissable). You also changed the verbatim quote of Moon in his article, despite it being taken straight from this National Post story. You simply cannot rewrite past quotes, especially ones that aren't even your own, to fit your view of the facts. Sherurcij 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No wonder Misplaced Pages is such a poor source: the simple fact that something has been verbalized or written is enough for you to cite as some kind of fact. Rather than it simply being my view of things - I have first hand information which you do not - the publication ban makes it harder for me to prove my point however. Looking forward to seeing your changes when these issues are brought up in court. Validation is one helluva feeling.

As to your methodology: you think MacLeans would be less likely to be subjective than me?! They have a vested interest in putting forward a "story" whereas I do not. They did not even confirm from the RCMP about paid rehab visits (there were zero), nor did you confirm with Shaukat Sheri's lawyers about the point of my testimony being disputed at appeal - you simply regurtitate unconfirmed information. I have already had this material tested in the preliminary hearings so I can certainly wait until you see for yourself.

Peace.

eMailed Sherurcij 01:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-Promotional

Why does this guy have such a long article? Cut it down to only his involvement in the terror plot and remove the idiotic, self-promotional pictures. I really don't care about his public speaking or other activities.Scott 110 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Other than subjective terms like "idiotic", I confess I don't understand the crux of your complaint, should we likewise remove all history of Charles Whitman up until he was actually in the bell tower? People's backgrounds are important, do not delete entire sections just because you dislike someone. Sherurcij 05:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a question of notability and relevance, why should all this background information be included on this guy when the only thing that makes Shaikh have this article in the first place is his involvement in the terror plot?Scott 110 (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that makes Charles Whitman notable is his involvement in the tower shootings, the only thing that makes Ziad Jarrah notable is his piloting of Flight 93 and the only thing that makes Lee Harvey Oswald notable is a single balmy November afternoon. Doesn't mean we don't include full context - please stop vandalising the article. Sherurcij 07:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So just because I don't agree with your point of view, that means I'm vandalising the article? I don't think so buddy. All the articles you mentioned don't have two nearly-identical pictures of the same guy, in the same pose. Also, you're equating Lee Harvey Oswald to Mubin Shaikh?? Unless you can come up with better reasoning than this, I think we'll be reverting back for now.Scott 110 (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to start a RfC on the matter if you'd like, but taking autonomous action to remove half an article because you think it's "idiotic" is vandalism, yes. Sherurcij 00:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why we need two pictures of this guy in the same pose, or why such intricate details of his personal life are relevant to the article. Until then, nice try. Scott 110 (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

{outdent} As I said, feel free to RfC the issue - but unless you do, your removals are very clear vandalism. All biographies include details of the person's personal life so long as they are not needlessly salacious - and it would be strange to have a full-body photograph as the main profile image - so it is given later in the article. Sherurcij 08:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No they're not, and again just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're vandalism. I have removed your "warning" from my talk page and posted one on yours instructing you not to leave such superflous statements. Further I am reverting the article because you still haven't made any rationale for keeping said content.Scott 110 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact you don't accept the rationale is not the same as saying I haven't given any rationale. It is not required to convince every single reader - only to meet community standards, which I have clearly done. Sherurcij 00:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You violated the 3RR and have been warned accordingly.Scott 110 (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR carefully, clear vandalism such as mass deletion may be reverted as often as is necessary to prevent vandals from disrupting an article. Sherurcij 00:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation is borderline of a personal attack.Scott 110 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see vandalism, rather a content dispute. Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to be flippant here but I have to say the second photo of Shaikh (the one where he has the hooded top on) does come across as unintentionally humourous. He looks like he's at a fashion shoot for Jihadis. But hey, if that's the best photo we've got of him, leave it in there. I'm not a signed in, registered Misplaced Pages user so not sure how to leave an i.d. 'tag' after this comment... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.32.218 (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

personal life

I reverted an excision by someone who asserted his tattoos were irrelevant. I disagree. His character and thus his credibility are being questioned. Tattoos and self-inflicted injuries are clues to his character.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was I who removed them. Frankly, I don't see the relevance - particularly with respect to the tattoos. However, if you feel there is relevance, then context must be provided (in the article, not here). If you think his having tatoos or self inflicted injuries relates in some ways to his case, etc - then point it out explicitly. Because many (including myself) will see it as a non-sequitur. I'll wait a few days and if no one provides the context, then I'll remove it again. Beetle B. (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The "context" can't be extrapolated in the main article itself, as it would constitute OR -- but I think things like a shield with the crescent of Islam speak for themself, that he does style himself as a defender of the faith. Go read a biography on Johnny Depp, notice how we mention his tattoos? Sherurcij 09:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First, the appearance of such content in Johnny Depp's article in no way justifies anything. Second, context is provided in Depp's article. Third, the conclusion of himself as "defender of the faith" from the tattoos is tenuous (as the article currently stands). There are stronger signs of both his religiosity and unreligiosity (drugs, etc) in the article. Self inflicted wounds could be signs of a lot of things - they're generally forbidden in Islam as well as most religions.

Looking at the references provided (after writing the above paragraph), I see that one of them made the link between that tattoo and his faith. I'd rather the article state it as coming from the perspective of the reference - rather than throwing it in as a random confusing detail. The other reference (Frontline) seems to give some of the context for the self-inflicted burns, which I think should be incorporated into the article. Maybe I'll do it one of these days.

I guess for now I'll "withdraw" the suggestion that those pieces of information be removed. But I think the article needs serious revamping - it's too much random and seemingly disconnected stuff. Maybe I'll do it one of these days. Beetle B. (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

HA! I tried revamping this article but guys like Sherurcij act as if it is his/her's and defend it vigorously against "vandalism". I am totally in favour for a revamp, based on a number of points, as mentioned in the talk above. Scott 110 (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Scott, as long as your idea of a "revamp" is to vandalise the article by removing every section except one which you think should receive sole prominence in relating the biography of a notable individual, it will be reverted. That's not ownership, that's vigilence against revisionism.

Beetle, I would love to see improvements made to the article - especially if there is information out there that is not yet added to the article. Sherurcij 05:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to decide that my edits are "revisionism"? Obviously the block still hasn't changed your thinking that a content dispute does not constitute vandalism. Moreso you still haven't given a valid reason as to why we need those two pictures in the article, do we really need to see Mubin's legs, or is that your personal preference? Scott 110 (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlaced combat boots, cargo pants, dishdasha, reflective shades and a hoodie - I'd say his style of outfit is indicative of a certain image he portrays. It's a public domain image, so there's no reason not to use it, other than your claims that the image somehow "promotes" Shaikh, which isn't entirely clear. Sherurcij 07:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Then as per your line of reasoning we don't need the second picture of only his upper body to further illustrate the "image he portays" - seeing as how it does not show his combat boots, cargo pants and hoodie being worn - correct? Scott 110 (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Profile images are typically just a bust, shoulders-up. Sherurcij 23:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry

Interesting fact, Mubin's parents are First cousins. Father & mother from Gujarat State.His Grandfather is retired police officer in India.76.71.17.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC).

And where are these facts from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedcables (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, without verification it would be Original Research at best, or libel at worst. Hence it won't be included in the article. By the way, Twistedcables, need you to throw a verification on the end of his "pleading guilty" when you find one. Sherurcij 22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL...original research?! Is that what making things up is called on Misplaced Pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.185.240 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that is why it's not allowed. Sherurcij 20:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Too many pictures?

I think that there are too many self-promotional pictures in the article. It would be best to remove some of them. Cooolway (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)