Talk:Khairullah Khairkhwa

past edits

1. I asked on this edit, on WP:NORN.
2. Edits like this one were discussed in January at WP:Help desk. It is counter to the consensus of that discussion.
3. This edit is simply incorrect.
4. I can't count how many times I have told the contributor who wouldn't stop removing these categories that I believe edits like this one are counter to the consensus established at {{cfd}} in March 2007.
5. This edit is simply incorrect.
6. This edit added a wikitag that directed the reader to the talk page to see how a concerned wikipedian thought the article should be rewritten. But that explanation was never added to the talk page.

I am going to address some of these problems. Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What's to discuss? Most of these issues are explained on other talk pages or long solved. IQinn (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments says (emphasis added):

Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.

This edit changed the name of this section from "poorly explained edits" to "past edits", but, contrary to guideline, no attempt was made to explain this change to the name of this section heading. Geo Swan (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed inappropriate inflammatory rude title to something neutral. IQinn (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My contribution history shows that I own up to mistakes, and that I do my best to fix them. I am sorry to report that the contributor who made the edits above never acknowledges mistakes, never tries to clean up after themselves, and has routinely interpreted questions about their edits -- no matter how tactfully they are expressed, as if they were personal attacks.

I can't help noticing that they have neither acknowledged the edits above, which I described as "poorly explained", were mistakes, or offered a further explanation for them. All they have done was change the heading to this section, with the specious claim that "poorly unexplained edits" was inflammatory.

I strongly urge this contributor to take responsibility for their earlier edits and statements. Collegial and civil discussion obliges us to own up when we make mistakes. Geo Swan (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

This edit applies an {{or}} tag, with no explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Can this link help you to remember? IQinn (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You routinely misinterpret policy. You are doing so here. I believe the community does not back your more extreme interpretations of OR, like this one. Geo Swan (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I called for advice at WP:NORN, which I believe did not back up the assertion of WP:OR in the edit summary. So I am reinstalling the table map. Geo Swan (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Table? What table are you talking about? IQinn (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

WRT assertions of WP:OR

In this edit the {{Original research section}} tag was recemtly re-added, without any real explanation. I am very concerned that this tag was inappropriate. Every statement in this section that once had a {{cn}} has a reference with a direct quote that substantiates it. The tag recommends readers look to the talk page, but no accompanying talk page explanation was added.

I am concerned that this tag is being added when it is not appropriate, based on misconceptions about the WP:OR policy.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

WRT claims of WP:NPOV

In this edit the {{USgovtPOV}} was recently re-added, without any real explanation. This article cites over a dozen non-US-Government references. I wonder what would make this tag appropriate. I think this tag requires a coherent explanation.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This tag was cut out by this user two times without given any explanation. I wonder what would make him do this as the vast majority of the information is still based on text from public domain United States government sources? IQinn (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Khairullah Khairkhwa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/measurements/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/03/2011314162928307158.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184542/http://cageprisoners.com/articles.php?aid=3838 to http://cageprisoners.com/articles.php?aid=3838
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1773140.stm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/12/16%20detainees%20wittes/1216_detainees_wittes.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17327440
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/10/2688491/taliban-prisoners-at-guantanamo.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/03/10/afghanistan-guantanamo-taliban-idINDEE82905620120310

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)