This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geo Swan (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 20 April 2010 (→As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:02, 20 April 2010 by Geo Swan (talk | contribs) (→As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography: Military Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Saudi Arabia Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
disputed picture
Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 04:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
explanation...
The image that i have removed from the article violates the basic rules of Misplaced Pages. It is the own work of a Misplaced Pages editor who took a primary source combined it with other sources and then interpreted it in the image description. This is a violation of WP:OR. The fact that these are mostly primary sources has also further problems as it does not comply with the policies of BLP's of living people. So i see this topic as taken to the talk page and the image should not be re-included until consensus has been reached. IQinn (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?
I reverted this edit, which had the edit summary: "Undid revision 357049732 by Sherurcij (talk) previously discussed please read the relevant discussions and raise your concerns there"
User:Iqinn did not state where this "relevant discussion" was to be found. That is not helpful to other contributors who look to the talk page to understand the history of an article.
A few days ago Iqinn made a IMO controversial edit, with the edit summary: "rm the "Identity" section with the "Captive 199..." as it is dehumanizing and based on WP:OR"
I recently asked for feedback on the "dehumanizing" concern at WP:BLPN. IMO none of those who weighed in with an opinion there shared the concern that these sections were "dehumanizing". Several of the contributors there also offered the opinion that the sections were not examples of original research.
If User:Iqinn has a different interpretation of that discussion perhaps they could explain why here?
If User:Iqinn thinks some other discussion is more applicable than the discussion at BLPN perhaps they could explain why here?
One of the participants there thought the section should be shorter.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Quite a lot of misinformation here that needs to been cleared up.
- User Sherurcij went on a revert war over a large set of articles 20-30 reverts in minutes concerning various previously discussed edits. There was no reason for that. Sure we can point him to the relevant discussion. You and i know where there are.
- Your interpretation of the debate at WP:BLPN is wrong. Other editors agreed that the section is problematic in terms of original research and they question the value of the section. The notable alternate names are listed in the infobox. Your interpretation of this debate is wrong and the result was that the section there was removed because of WP:OR.
- The result at WP:BLPN was the removal of the section. Please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages by starting the same discussion over and over again and edit warring. IQinn (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't own this article, Sherurcij doesn't own this article, and neither do you or any other contributor. Our talk page entries should be written so ANY other contributor who comes along later can understand the explanations we offer for our edits.
- I would be letting the rest of the community down if I addressed a comment to you, that hinted at a previous discussion, but didn't offer a wikilink or diff to that previous discussion. Other readers shouldn't have to play detective, and start the potentially very time consuming exercise of checking our recent contribution histories to look for some other disucssion, elsewhere. Please understand that can put a burden on other good faith contributors that opens them up for hours of work. They don't know how far back to check our contribution histories. And they have to guess at the edit summaries that mark that previous discussion.
- When I have made the mistake of referring to a previous discussion, without leaving a link or diff to that discussion, I can't count on the contributor my comments are addressed to knowing which discussion I am referring to, or remembering where to find it.
- Heck, sometimes when I have made this mistake, when I have reviewed a comment I made, a month later, or a few months later, I can't find the other discussions I referred to.
- In this particular instance I don't know, for certain, which (recent?) discussion(s) you are referring to. From here on in I am going to make the effort to never refer to a previous discussion elsewhere without offering diffs, wikilinks, or both. And I request you do the same.
- WRT the discussion at BLPN, have you accepted that your assertion that sections were "dehumanizing" wasn't supported? Geo Swan (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
removal of valid and useful wikilinks
This edit removed valid and useful wikilinks, with the edit summary "clarify and unlink interpretation of questionable source".
While I am willing to accept at face value User:Iqinn's assertion that they have explained why they characterize certain references as "questionable sources", and why this justifies summary excision, I request that, in turn, they accept that my good faith attempts to find a meaningful, substantive, policy-based explanation in their replies I just haven't been able to do so. Rather, no offense, it seems that their characterization of those references as "questionable sources" is a purely personal interpretation. And, no offense, but I am concerned that changing the content of articles, based on purely personal interpretations, does not comply with writing articles from a neutral point of view.
I request they attempt to try to rephrase their explanation of their characterization of certain references as "questionable sources", and why this justifies summary excision. Geo Swan (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- This has been explained and discussed on your talk page. Please follow up on the relevant discussions on your talk page. I have pointed you to these discussions a few times. Unfortunately you refused to discuss this topic there after it was shown that your arguments are weak. I have ask you a few times on your talk page to reply to the given arguments but you did not do so. Instead you started edit warring and you are still refusing to continue the relevant discussions. I must say that is all very troublesome and disruptive and i ask you one more time to stop your disruptive behavior. IQinn (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am willing to accept, at face value, that you think you offered an explanation of why you characterize some references as "questionable sources".
- In return I ask you to accept, at face value, that I have looked in the discussion for a meaningful explanation of this characterization -- and I can't find one.
- Maybe you have offered that explanation. Fine, then it should be an easy matter for you to:
- rephrase your argument and explain your characterization of some references as "questionable sources";
- offer actual, genuine diffs to your explanation of your characterization of some references as "questionable sources";
- cut and paste the passages where you offereed your of your characterization of some references as "questionable sources".
- Maybe you have offered that explanation. Fine, then it should be an easy matter for you to:
- I repeat, I have offered to take at face value your assertion that you think you offered an explanation of why you characterize some references as "questionable sources", in return I ask you to accept at face value that I can't find that meaningful explanation of this characterization.
- Maybe you are experiencing something I have occasionally experienced. There have been occasions when I am remember offering a long reply to some correspondent, and have been frustrated that they seem to be ignoring it. However, when I have double checked, while I may have drafted the reply, something went wrong, like my computer crashing, and the explanation didn't end up on-wiki.
- If you make a genuine effort to provide genuine diffs you may find your recollection you drafted an explanation is playing you false. Is so please do what I do. Recreate the argument you thought you offered. Geo Swan (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry please go back to the relevant discussions and address the given explanations. No need and reasons to start new discussions to continuously to demand new explanations that have been given already. I may remind you that i have ask you many time to do so. , , and i have remind and linked to the relevant discussions ten's of times you did not answer any of them at all. You are still welcome to go back to answer my questions and to address the given arguments when you think you have good counter arguments. IQinn (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)