Do you have any reliable sources speaking of a cover up? It seems the easiest way to cover it up would be to not charge the soldiers and keep everything hush, but if you have good sources then it should be added. Otherwise all I can find is several sources citing a birth cirtificate that was never produced, versus several sources estimating her age; I'm not sure unless there is clear evidence that one is right and the other is wrong that we can pick one and leave out the others...? Fuzbaby (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just evaluated hundreds of sources again and with no doubt Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi (August 19, 1991 - March 12, 2006) was 14 when she was gang-raped and murdered. [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]], [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]]... Do you have any reliable source from 2009, 2008, 2007 that shows she was not 14? The wrongly claims she was older then 14 originates mainly from the early testimonies of the convicted rapists and murders. For example Steven Green guilty on all 17 counts and you can read the 17 counts here. Have a close look at the counts and you will probably understand what i mean with cover up. You can also find more information here, here and here. Do you still think we should not write she was 14 and instead repeat the false statements of the rapists and murders? Iqinn (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources, after looking through them I agree with you. Best, Fuzbaby (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have a question as to why you removed the tag from the article on Nayif Fahd Mutliq Al Usaymi. I originally placed it there because the sources listed there are primary sources - in other words, there are no secondary sources that do more than trivially mention the subject of the article. The reason you listed as removing the tag seems to be the exact reason I placed the tag there in the first place? Thanks for clearing this up! BWH76 (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit surprised because i can not remember that i have remove tags from this page. I usually do not remove tags that other people have placed. So i checked the history of the page. It could be that has removed them if you mean these removed tags. IQinn (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had another closer look at the article. I fully agree with you on the tag and have added the same tags to other articles with the same problem. User:Sherurcij has added the {ARB} template in the same edit. What automatically adds automatically one more ref to the article. But this ref is also a primary source and the subject of the article is not mention in it this article. IQinn (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I just checked the article once again and see that you're exactly right. Sorry for the misunderstanding! BWH76 (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you created a redirect under Animal Number 64 that pointed to Lahcen Ikassrien?

Animal Number 64 has no incoming links. And 64 is not even Lahcen Ikassrien's ISN.

I thought you were concerned that the Guantanamo captives shouldn't be dehumanized? Please explain how calling a captive an animal is consistent with your stand on dehumanization. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are various methods how to dehumanize an individual, letting a prisoner wear a plastic bracelet that calls him "Animal number 64" get's an A+ on how to dehumanize an individual. But that is what happen to Lahcen Ikassrien when he was detained. Headline in secondary sources. And here are the links where you can find who dehumanized him. [21], [22]. IQinn (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no incoming link to Animal Number 64. I anticipate other contributors are likely to either ask you to explain this redirect. Less patient and understanding contributors than I am may just nominate it for speedy deletion. This is less likely to happen if there are incoming links. Geo Swan (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that this comes from highly reliable secondary sources. [23], [24] IQinn (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all that important, but just for your own edification, you should know the Uighurs do not live in southern China, as you said in this edit. In fact, assuming that we can agree that "southern" China is the area below, say 30°N, and given that that area is almost 100% east of the Mekong, we find that the Uighurs, who live in the northwestern region of the People's Republic's territory, are actually located as far away across the country as possible from "southern" China. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - you are of course absolutely right. I have corrected my comment there, i hope it is fine now. Thank's for telling me. IQinn (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problema. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iqinn: I made changes to Abdul Hafiz (Guantanamo detainee) based on the tags, removed the content fork, neutralized the article, etc. Can you make any other suggestions regarding this article? Thanks.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. I am not sure how to further improve it. There aren't many sources. IQinn (talk)

I am working on a potential RfC/U about User:Geo Swan. The draft is located at User:Fram/Sandbox. I have used a discussion where you were involved as part of the evidence, and would like to invite you to go over the draft RfC and add or correct whatever you feel is necessary. Obviously, if you feel that an RfC/U is not appropriate or not the best step to take, feel free to let me know as well. Fram (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan, you are free to certify it, add an outside view, or otherwise comment as you see fit. Fram (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Papermoneyisjustpaper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has this been reported to WP:SPI for checkuser investigation??? Do you think it could be related to Geo Swan (talk · contribs)? You should probably please either report it to WP:SPI, or stop making allegations across multiple pages without having done so. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I went ahead and reported this to WP:SPI, now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geo Swan. It seems pretty conclusive on the behavioral evidence = consider that fully 100% of the AFDs commented at by the possible sock, were on articles previously created by Geo Swan. Perhaps you may have additional evidence to present? -- Cirt (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...:) my reply came to late. But let me check more details now.... IQinn (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before i read your FYI. No i did not report that. Papermoneyisjustpaper stopped editing 5-6 days ago after i pointed out that he might be a Sock puppet. It should be Sherurcij (talk · contribs) according to the way of editing and Afd argumentation and participation. Sherurcij is only indirect related to Geo Swan. :) They worked very closely together on Guantanamo (war on terror) related articles for many years. He was also in my opinion one reason why this section is a mess and cleaning up and improving was is almost impossible. He participated in most of the Guantanamo related Afd's until he stopped editing around May 2010. 98% chance that Papermoneyisjustpaper and Sherurcij are the same person. Too many details in the way the writing and argumentation went in the 5 recent Guantanamo related Afd's where he suddenly appeared. Not hard to spot for me as i have seen many of them in the past. I am not so into SPI and as he has stopped now and IP's change quickly... i am not sure if some actions are necessary now. But anybody who thinks some steps should be taken can of course go ahead. Feel free to ask me for further details if needed. Regards. IQinn (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the SPI based on your comments, diff. Look okay? I guess the page could be moved to Sherurcij instead of Geo Swan as the master sock, but there is behavioral evidence for both. -- Cirt (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your page, as said i am not into SPI but it looks like your work is professional. Ask me for more details if needed. IQinn (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Moved it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherurcij. Thoughts? Anything to add as far as more evidence and diffs and links? -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine for me. You are very professional. Cheers IQinn (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherurcij

This socking investigation case yielded  Confirmed results linking (7) sock accounts to each other, and they were all then indefinitely blocked. However, technical data on the suspected main sockmaster account, Sherurcij (talk · contribs) was stale, and the reviewing admin did not wish to block on the behavioral evidence alone. Do you think it is worthwhile to spend a bit more time going over the already  Confirmed and blocked sock accounts tied to each other, and link them back to the main suspected sockmaster account? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not much time at the moment. My editing skills are slow and i think it would not be worth the time. Should be fine for the moment. IQinn (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iqinn, I tried to find stuff on this detainee, and can find nothing. Shabir (Bagram captive) If you can find anything, add it, otherwise, I simply do not think he's notable. Any thoughts on this? Thanks.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and just worked a bit on it. It looks to me that this is another of this articles mostly based on primary sources and speculations. Just started an Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabir (detainee) and you might want to have a look at it. Regards IQinn (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Check this out and comment if you like. [25]

--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work nominating that article for deletion! Keep up the good efforts! A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I review every edit on its merits, and only a select few are manly enough to receive a manliness award! A Very Manly Man (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read and respond to my most recent comments on the airstrikes page? V7-sport's behaviour is very frustrating and I'm wondering if anything can be done to stop this behaviour. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is Wikipedia:Gaming the system and i have not figured out how to stop people who are gaming the system. You may ask Jimmy Wales. IQinn (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RM your replies to my comments under the Kirti section and I will remove my responses to your replies. Deal? I sometimes f*** up when having to contend with two discussions at once, especially if one of them is heated. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 19:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any problem with your and my comment there. So i disagree with the removal of the discussion. Though you are free to strike out your comment. IQinn (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well did my response to your query and our conversation add anything useful to that discussion? I think not, and I feel that I made the initial response rashly and was in the wrong to do that. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So as i said you are welcome to strike your part. Sorry i am not going to delete my. IQinn (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!
I'm the IP Address of TurtleShroom, who made several contributions regarding the nuclear terrorism by the 9/11 plotter in Gitmo. on the Khalid Muhammed, Gitmo Leaks, and Nuclear terroism articles. I didn't see it referenced or mentioned, so I added it.

I wanted to thank you, personally, for not only, by deed, supporting my attempts to provide evidence for the other side (AKA justification of the WOT) from these links andleaks, but also for your additions to the section (the uranium and the waterboarding) in an honest attempt to keep it neutral and on the article.

I am very elated thatyou didn't remove it as "unreliable" because of its political bent. Despite the neutral policies, I tend to always see more pro-American Left items in articles over American Right (conservative) items. This is not Wikipedia's fault, of course, but simply an unintended consequence of the Internet being left-leaning. On rare occasions, I've seen rather reliable items removed on grounds that were'nt always in the best of faith. Not neccesarily bad faith, per say, but not pure either.

No matter. I just wanted to award you with my cheesy little award and personally commend you for your assistance. I rarely edit by username unless I have to (redirects, images) or I want to take personal credit for an edit, like in this case. The last time I did, I embarassed myself big time, so I'm sort of shy on editing Wikipedia by name.

So, yeah, thank you so much for your support and assistance. I appreciate your fixes and additions, and am glad you're so willing to help even the most Noobish of users, who in good faith add the rare conservative leaning to an article.

It meant a lot to me, so I hope you'll take my award as thanks. Again, thank you so much.

Warm regards,
-TurtleShroom by IP

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.108.248 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. IQinn (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IQinn: I have finally resolved to start cleaning the Detainee articles up, and removing the content forks, original research and primary source materials from them. See: [[26]]. Once I am done removing the offending materials, I will be looking at the list to see which Detainees meet notability requirements, and which do not. This can be done through researching of secondary sources. I figure this is a good summer project. Let me know your thoughts, and if you want to split the list. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yachtsman1: Thank you for the great work. I will post my list of articles that i think are non notable here. You may double check them and go ahead with clean up and deleting. It is still difficult for our readers to find the notable stuff. IQinn (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sa ad Ibraham Sa ad Al Bidna
• Musa_Ali_Said_Al_Said_Al_Amari
• Sultan Sari Sayel Al Anazi
• Abdullah Muhammed Abdel Aziz
• Mehrabanb Fazrollah
• Khalid Hassan Husayn Al Barakat
• Rashed Awad Khalaf Balkhair
• Fahd Muhammed Abdullah Al Fouzan
• Al_Silm_Haji_Hajjaj_Awwad_Al_Hajjaji
• Abdul Karim (Guantanamo detainee)
• Abd Al-Hizani
• Saleh Ali Jaid Al Khathami
• Akhtar Mohammed (Guantanamo detainee 845)
• Abdullah Khan
• Salam Abdullah Said
• Abdallah Ibrahim Al Rushaydan
• Abdul Sattar (Guantanamo detainee 10)
• Abdel Hadi Mohammed Badan Al Sebaii Sebaii
• Nayif Fahd Mutliq Al Usaymi
• Kushky Yar
• Muhammad Surur Dakhilallah Al Utaybi
• Sultan Ahmed Dirdeer Musa Al Uwaydha
• Wasm Awwad Umar Wasim
• Mohamed Anwar Kurd
• Ziad Said Farg Jahdari
• Habib Rasool
• Said Mohammed
• Rashid Abdul Mosleh Qayed
• Abd Al Aziz Muhammad Ibrahim Al Nasir
• Abdullah_Hamid_al_Qahtani
• Salim Suliman Al Harbi
• Tariqe Shallah Hassan Al Harbi

Hello. This is to let you know that I have named you as a disputant on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Aafia_Siddiqui.2C_File:Siddiqui2.PNG. Regards, causa sui (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[27] When you add a citation, please don't just post a link, but include author, title, publication, date, and page number. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be perfectly fine for the start we are a big community where people with different skills work together and it is easy for anybody to fill out references, i am not very good in that, actually i have seen a lot of people who have extra tools for that. IQinn (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I started off on the wrong foot. Your sentence was reverted along with two long paragraphs full of copyright violations, but I've put it back. Please feel free to comment on the article's Talk page if you'd like. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, apology accepted. IQinn (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PI-News is WP:RS, can you revert my edit. --NeedB-G (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. It's apparent that the edit war between V7-sport and Iquinn will never stop, and neither party appears much more innocent than the other. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 03:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iqinn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apologize for the disruption i have caused. I promise not to revert V7-sport or any other editor in the inappropriate way i have done. I would like to continue my work on Wikipedia, especially on the BLP's of the Guantanamo prisoner as many of them are in a very bad shape. There are still many problems with these articles especially regarding WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Only very few people work in this area. My longest block has been 48 hours and the life long block from Wikipedia feels like punishment to me. I apologize again and ask to be unblocked so that i can continue my work. IQinn (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is your fifth block for edit warring, so you were already well aware of the policy and you chose to ignore it, big time. I'm going to give you the same advice I gave your co-combatant in this pointless fracas: I suggest you consider the standard offer. You have ignored the edit warring policy on too many occasions to be trusted not to do it again at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You do understand that "indefinite" and "infinite" are not the same, right? Have you read WP:GAB? Can you show us what WP:EW really means, and why it's bad? Can you explain WP:DR in your own words? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i do understand that. I did read WP:GAB but i spent more time reading WP:EW and WP:DR. In my understanding WP:EW means disruptive back and forward reverting and it is bad because it causes disruption to the editing process. I apologize again and will not revert in the inappropriate way i have done. WP:AVOIDEDITWAR gave me additional guidance how to avoid not being dragged into edit wars in the future. WP:DR is the policy that shows how to resolve disputes. Although i did suggest several times dispute resolution i did not initiate them early enough. That was mainly because i was not familiar with all of them and because my suggestions to initiate them were rejected. It is a controversial field were i work but that is no excuse for causing disruption. In the future i will act more proactive in initiating the appropriate WP:DR process ahead of time. I apologize again and hope the community can gain new trust in me so that i can continue my work. IQinn (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me at "being dragged into edit wars." Nobody dragged you into it, it was your choice. to do this:[28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] . Beeblebrox (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? To make this absolutely clear. I do not think and i never thought that i have been dragged into this edit war. You are misinterpreting and quoting me here a bit out of context. I have never blamed the other side for my misbehavior. I took the words "being dragged into edit wars." directly from WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. I refer and use this in context of this policy (it is the title) as to how to avoid being dragged not engage (or what ever you want to rename it) in edit wars. I have never blamed the other side for my misbehavior.

Is there any other solution that could be thought of that would allow me to continue my work especially on the Guantanamo detainees BLP's? It is also a topic that still develops. I think a 6+ month time out period would lead to the fact that i would get lost, i have spent a lot of time to get familiar with these topics and as always the knowledge is kept and grows best when working continuously on something. Could a zero revert limitation a possible solution? IQinn (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you have been blocked several times before and warned many, many times for this exact same behavior. I can't see any reason to believe you suddenly understand and will comply with the edit warring policy when you have had so many chances and have gone on edit warring anyway. The standard offer is a "last chance option" that asks you to go edit on some other Wikimedia project and actually prove you are capable of not repeating the problematic behavior since you have lost the community's trust on this project. So in my opinion, no, there is not some other solution since your word is not sufficient assurance. Others may see it differently. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated a wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iqinn Geo Swan (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iqinn, we have disagreed on many issues.

I have thought about whether to go to my preferred versions on issues we disagreed with, on my sole authority. I have decided, instead, to seek wider input on issues where we disagreed.

I will take your views into account, if they are civil and meaningful. You can either use email, or leave your civil, meaningful questions, suggestions and other comments here. Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

During the 28 months they were active here, the individual or individuals who used the User:Iqinn wiki-id applied thousands of editorial tags, and, IMO, those tags were often applied recklessly.

In this edit one of those individuals applied a {{dead link}} tag, when it would have been little more effort to have replaced the out of date URL with the current URL, as I have done here.

The individual or individuals who used the User:Iqinn wiki-id applied close to a thousand {{dead link}} tags. I regard it as very unfortunate that these URLs weren't fixed, rather than being tagged. It is unfortunate that Iqinn chose not to use more meaningful edit summaries. I pleaded with Iqinn, in multiple notes, over their practice of using misleading edit summaries that obfuscated what they were actually doing. The single word "clarify" was one of their favourite edit summaries -- and sometimes masked highly controversial edits that really required a fuller explanation on the talk page, or in some central location.

If they had used "applied "dead link tag" that would have made it a lot easier to deal with the easily fixable {{dead link}} tags they left.

I am leaving this note here as part of my effort in addressing the ongoing legacy of this contributor. Geo Swan (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several dozen articles about the Guantanamo captives from particular nations. One of the sad parts of the Iqinn legacy is that when I spent considerable time updating these articles on captives of particular nationalities with the individual captives' release dates those behind the Iqinn ID decided to replace that date with the word "released". I pointed out that the date was important information, and that my approach allowed the tables to be sorted by release date. Those behind the Iqinn ID had no meaningful reply to my concerns, but nevertheless blew away the work I put into documenting those dates in almost all those articles.

At Talk:Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay I explained why I reverted this particular informationectomy. When I revert other instances my edit summary can link to this edit. Geo Swan (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the individuals held at Guantanamo were routinely identified inconsistently. Multiple documents referred to them by multiple names. Sometimes the inconsistent identification were unrecognizably dissimilar. I thought it was important to document this phenomenon as different individuals had similar or identical names, and identity confusion seemed widespread.

The individuals who used the Iqinn userid routinely removed these sections, claiming they were "dehumanizing". They proved unwilling or unable to fully explain themselves, or to discuss a compromise. I will restore these sections on a case by case basis. Geo Swan (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The individuals who used the Iqinn userid misleadingly used to routinely use the deceptive edit summary "clarify" to obfuscate large and complicated edits, as in this example. Iqinn misleadingly used this deceptive edit summary many times, maybe way more than in 1000 edits.

Back in 2010, in the interests of civility and collegiality I asked them to use more meaningful edit summary. Typically for their WP:BATTLEGROUND mind set, 2 minutes later they excised my good faith request with the one word edit summary "troll". Geo Swan (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The individuals who used the Iqinn userid routinely removed coverage of the DoD's inability to consistently identify captives with the bogus assertions clarify / no question about identity. I thought documenting the many names the DoD used for captives was important. This was yet another editorial issue where the individuals behind Iqinn were unable to engage in a civil, collegial discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a mind-reader, so I can't explain why Iqinn devoted thousands of hours to targetting my contributions. Of course if the goal of the individuals using this wiki-id had been to work to improve the wikipedia, while complying with all wikipolicies and guidelines, then there would be no problem with them choosing to try to improve material I originally contributed.

But the record shows that they could not comply with policy, and other wikidocuments, particularly our civility policies, and those that govern how to reach consensus. In this particular instance those using the Iqinn wiki-ID chose to use verbatim copies lf key passages from the nytimes, without attribution. I explained my policy concerns to the Iqinn team. They called for advice at WP:HELP/Archives/2010_January_7#Copyright. That advice echoed my earlier concerns.

Those using the Iqinn wiki-ID subsequently ignored the advice given there, and continued to revert my policy compliant passages with his inadequate and dated version.

I am reverting these highly ill-advised passages, as I come across them. Geo Swan (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Al-Qaeda has been nominated for merging with Template:AQChiefs. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Al-Qaeda has been nominated for merging with Template:Al-Qaeda and direct affiliates. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Al-Qaeda has been nominated for merging with Template:3iC-alQaeda. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Abeer Qassim Hamsa.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]