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]

Do you think it would be worthwhile to add a template similar to {{Birth date and age}}, allowing us to insert it into each prisoner's bio, so that it automatically says "As of [today], he has been held for [x] years, [y]months" or something? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 11:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Geo Swan has worked on something like that and you might contact him how to do it. Could be done but would not have the highest priority for me at the moment often it is better to keep things simple. The numbers of prisoner still detained has gone down and will further decrease. IQinn (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2010 (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. [1], [2]. 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. [3], [4] 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]

I have removed your Redirects for Deletion tag from Guest house, Kandahar. I did this because you the nomination never got added to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 3, and you never gave a reason for deletion. If you still think this redirect needs to be deleted, feel free to renomijate it, making sure that the nomination gets listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at WP:NORN#Original images which concerns a topic you commented on previously (a map created by Geo Swan). Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=371697289&oldid=371697218 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 08:22, 2010 July 4

Whatever happens in the current AfD, if for some miraculous reason the AfD does not result in a delete close, please do not re-nominate the article for another AfD immediately. Rather, the appropriate venue is WP:DRV. Even if something totally weird happens in the present AfD and the article is not deleted, there is no way it would be kept after a DRV review. As you said, there is only one source that provides a one-sentence mention of the camp. Nsk92 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's, you are absolutely right. There have been already too many problematic closure. IQinn (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comment regarding your !vote in this RfA. While for support !votes, it is generally considered acceptable to provide no rationale (and a support !vote without such a rationale is generally understood to mean "per nom"), for an oppose !vote it is expected to provide at least a brief explanation. Otherwise an oppose without an explanation is likely to be discounted or even completely disregarded by the closing 'crat. There has been a discussion in the RfA below your oppose precisely because you did not provide a reason. I'd recommend that you go back to that RfA and add at least a brief rationale to your !vote. Nsk92 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's, i did not see that discussion. IQinn (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]