Talk:Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

message: Why is there still a question on Notability. This young woman's life has been examined in reputable 2nd party sources and all of the details that can be brought together about herself, and her life outside of the incident that brought her to our attention should be accessible and linked together for a broader understanding. musesduaghter (talk)   —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's come up again because the last killer has been sentenced as of yesterday. It's in the news. I don't know why there's another deletion nomination since it's already been discussed and ruled a "Keep"nut-meg (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability?

message: I corrected the date of birth but I couldn't do it on the picture comment which shows at the bottom page when you click on the picture. The comment is currently: "The card shows her date of birth as August 19, 1991." It should be February 28, 1992. Can someone do the modif. Thanks - Coramaroc (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact DOB of the 14 year-old girl

message: This discussion is now non-applicable. -- Ryan4314 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Against:
# This is an article about an individual. It is in no way less notable than other victims of the Iraq War like Miguel Terrazas. Socafan 23:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion 

message: Another wikipedian excised an external link with the edit summary -- rv addition of unnecessary link.
I checked out the link they excised.  It seemed to be a very useful link, with further links to news articles, showing the timeline of how the press covered the story.  I couldn't imagine why the other wikipedian excised it, unless they didn't read past the first couple of paragraphs.
So I restored it.
Cheers!  --  Geo Swan 01:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They probably read the URL and decided it wasn't NPOV without looking at it first  nut-meg 06:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reviewed the page, almost none of it is original content but it DOES have a very good compilation of very well cited and documented information on this case. It should never have been deleted. Any link deletions are to be discussed on the talk page first. nut-meg 06:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert poorly explained edit -- see talk 

message: There is an error in reporting in either this or the James Barker article.  This article states that Hamza's sister was seven, the other claims she was five.  Which is it?  
Shantron 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and the BBC and Guardian articles say she was six. Anchoress 05:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with other wiki article 

message: This page really needs a lot of cleanup. I'm not going to have time in the next week or so, but I'll come back to it if nobody else does. nut-meg 06:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page 

message: This discussion is now non-applicable. -- Ryan4314 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion

message: The 2 in 28 looks different from the other 'twos.' It looks to me like a three, though I am not sure since it is not very clear. Thoughts? -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like 1993/3/28 

message: I plan to bring the just closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abeer_Qassim_Hamza_al-Janabi to the deletion review section. Because it was closed with the label "consensus to merge the content into the article Mahmudiyah killings". What was quite stunning for me. I and others have always strongly opposed a merger and there was no sign of consensus at all. The discussion could have been at least extended. I have left a message at the closing administrators talk page to explain the reasons for his decision. And i am taking steps now to start the review process as soon as possible. As i am new to Wikipedia any help would be appreciated. Iqinn (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Who closed it? The whole discussion consisted of people giving their opinions and User:Jauerback telling everyone they were stupid. This article has been through this a few times before and the result has been "keep". The arguments against were all about notability but only argued from an American media POV. In other words, "it's not notable because it's not on MY tv." It really seems like a POV crusade to have this deleted or merged. nut-meg (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nut-meg, you can believe what you want, but I challenge you to find anywhere in the discussion where I made any personal attacks.  Specifically, where I called anyone stupid or even implied it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've shown very little respect for anyone else's opinion in your crusade to get rid of this article. Who knows why, but I don't think an article can be deleted because of one person's desire for it to be gone.  It really seems more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue,and this article was merged without consensus. nut-meg (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  The closing administratom is Sandstein and i have just started talking to him about the closing at his  talk page. Jauerback has edited Mahmudiyah killings in order to perform the merge. I have reverted his edits because it is far to early for anybody to do this. He knows i have reverted them and he says he respect it. Iqinn (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nut Meg, I really don't appreciate the accusations that you're throwing at me.  Can you provide any specific examples?  If not, I'd ask you to drop it put your personal feelings aside.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jauerback, One example would be that you have redirected this page here only hours after the closing of the discussion without even give us a chance of discussion. I just found out when coming in over a search engine i landed at Mahmudiyah killings. There is not even a banner at the the page that let people know that a merge is on the way. We have not even started to discuss the merger. I have tried to revert to the edition before the redirection but it failed. I am not sure if it is because i made a technical mistake or if the page is even blocked from reverting. Help to revert it back would be appreciated. And after that we could just calm down, relax and discuss how the merger is performed in a good way. Iqinn (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your example of how I was rude?  Please. This is normal procedure on AFDs that end in merges. I thought I was helping you out by doing it myself and I think I did a pretty decent job at the merge. It's called being bold.  Did you even read the merged article or did you just blindly revert it?  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to take it to deletion review (I agree there was no consensus to merge), then do it already! It will probably take you about 10 minutes. Badagnani (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: New discussions go at the bottom, you are new here Iqinn, we are telling you how this place works, listen. Ryan4314  (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Iqinn, you might want to check your internet browser settings, because the page isn't redirected.  I was wondering why you did a revert again yesterday, because it wasn't redirected then, either. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I now understand.  You were going to the Abeer Qassim Hamza page, which is not the article itself, but a redirect to it.  I never even knew this page existed (it was redirected by a bot after my merge attempt).  Anyway, it looks like it's fixed now. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, browser and server caching could have been the problem. So i checked the page in two different browsers on two computers over some period of time... Yes looks like a robot gave us some more problems. It got finally fixed. You can read about it here WP:Administrators' noticeboard. I am happy things have been cleared now. I will sent the deletion review tomorrow. And will respect the decision of the wider Wikipedia community there. I think we all have put in great work into it. And i now believe that it is possible that Wikipedia will have improved at the end. Sorry for all the trouble that i have caused as a newcomer. Iqinn (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion review