Talk:Haji Wazir (Bagram detainee)

misleading comments

Sometimes other contributors edit summaries alarm me, for various reasons. IMO:

1. they shouldn't be too brief, or misleading;
2. they shouldn't be too long;
3. putting an explanation for a controversial edit in an edit summary is no substitute for offering a civil, collegial, meaningful explanation on the talk page. Placing explanations for controversial edits in the edit summary is a volatile trigger for edit warring, as it prompts those who disagree to put their rebutal in an edit summary -- which requires them to respond with a reversion. When an edit is controversial I think it is almost always best to seek consensus on the talk page first.

I keep coming across edit summaries that contain the innocuous one word "clarify". One particularly active contributor uses this edit summary several times a day -- masking a very wide variety of actions -- including very controversial ones. This is an instance.

This particular instance concerns me for several reasons.

First, this contributor has not, to my knowledge, offered any explanation as to why they would move extrajudicial detention from the "charges" field of the {{Infobox WoT detainees}} to the "status" field. Perhaps an argument could be made that this is clearer. But they haven't made that argument.

I request this contributor offer that explanation to the community now, and stop making this previously undiscussed change until other contributors have given their feedback. If the community decides this change makes sense lets consistently make this change to all the appropriate {{Infobox WoT detainees}}. And, if the community decides otherwise? Let's leave them as is, or revert those they already changed back to status quo ante.

I call for all contributors to be more careful, and not use edit summaries that are too brief, or are misleading. I have a couple of edit summaries I routinely use, and I too will try to make sure I haven't fallen into the habit of using some that are clear to me, but aren't clear to other contributors.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes other contributors comments to talk pages alarm me, for various reasons.

First of all, this comment here is mostly ad hominum with many false claims.

I request this contributor to stop this undesirable behavior.

Coming to the change i made here on this article i might remind this contributer once again that he does not have ownership over this set of articles and i will continue to do changes as other people will do as well.

As i said before nobody needs to write page long explanation for edits in advanced this is not standard practice and it is not desirable. And asking for explanations in advance as you have done here is a strong sign of ownership.

You want to discuss what is the better place for the extrajudicial detention? Sure i am willing to discuss content issues in a civil manner as i have done always.

My suggestion as reflected in the edit that i made in on the page here

If the individual is still in extrajudicial detention i think it would make sense to mention it under Status.

If the individual is not in extrajudicial detention anymore i have suggested in the past that it could be removed from the infobox. You rejected this and the compromise before was something like Charges: No charge (held in extrajudicial detention) IQinn (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

merge

I merged Wazir (Guantanamo detainee) into this article as they concern the same individual. The speculation that he might be in Guantanamo was based mostly on WP:OR. IQinn (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain how you established that they are the same individual? Geo Swan (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The other article had just one reference apart from the original research. That document has a case number. IQinn (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your answer doesn't explain how you established that they are the same individual. Could you please explain how you established that they are the same individual? Geo Swan (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As said follow the case number. Just put it into Google. I wonder why nobody noticed before and we ended up with this false assumption that he is in Guantanamo. IQinn (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wazir (Bagram detainee, 2002). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090108190109/http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-some-overseas-extension-of-habeas/ to http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-some-overseas-extension-of-habeas/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)