Talk:Saeed Jarabh

message: I stumbled across this page through the "Random article" link. The image of the Casio watch needs some more explaining in the image legend. I suppose it has something to do with this: "The detainee was in possession of a watch type that has been used in bombing linked to radical terrorist improvised explosive devices", but when skimming through the article, the image was confusing, and at first made me suspect vandalism. --NorwegianBlue talk 20:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the captions for the gitmo images fail WP:CAPTION in some way.  While the current caption does describe the picture, it does not establish relevance or draw the reader into the article unless the reader is curious about the image's relevance.  I believe this is better: "This detainee was in possession of a watch type that has been linked to terrorist IEDs."   However, I don't really mind much at all. Retropunk (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Casio watch 

message: I've removed the hatnote as I could find nothing to suggest that he was known as Mohammed Said, as if it was his personal name. If I'm wrong, my apologies, and lplease re-add the hatnote and dab entry. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: These links to the page numbers within the OARDEC documents may be useful to other contributors.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another useful link is the The Guantanamo Docket it is an interactive database provided and updated by the New York Times. The database is searchable and has the Pentagon documents (CSRT and ARB) included. Additional documents and reliable New York Times research regarding the detainees at Guantanamo are also provided. This is the link to the documents and research regarding Saeed Ahmed Mohammed Abdullah Sarem Jarabh. IQinn (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  rough work 

message: This edit is a direct and unattributed word-for-word quote -- and it constitutes close to half of the NYTimes' contribution of new intellectual context to its Guantanamo docket for this captive.
This is wrong.  This is a mistake.  I have my concerns to the contributor who has added similar direct and unattributed word-for-word quotes to something like one hundred other articles.  They have said they will think about my concerns.  So far I haven't seen them make any effort to correct these edits.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is under discussion as you know. See here, here, here. Please do not start an edit war and engage in discussions and answer questions. IQinn (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  direct and unattributed word for word quote... 

message: Same contributor removed a valid image with the edit summary: "rm - no independent secondary sources that confim this image is relevant for the BLP of Saeed Jarabh".  I have explained to this contributor, several times, that the Summary of Evidence memos ARE secondary sources.  OARDEC is an independent agency.  They collated, analyzed, and summarized documents from over half a dozen other military and civilian agencies.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is under discussion as you know. See here, here, here. Please do not start an edit war and engage in discussions and answer questions. IQinn (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate image removal

message: In this edit, with an edit summary of "clarify and unlink interpretation of questionable source", another contributor removed a bunch of valid and useful wikilinks. 
I think this kind of extensive and controversial edit requires further explanation on the article's talk page.  In particular I think that explanation should include a clear explanation of why the excising contributor consider the source "questionable".  
This contributor has similarly excised valid and useful wikilinks from many other articles.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is under discussion as well and you know that. See here, here, here. Please do not start an edit war and engage in discussions and answer questions. You have been warned already multiple times please stop your edit war and engage in constructive discussions. IQinn (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate removal of valid and useful wikilinks