Talk:Baridad

anomaly
The first two allegations against Baridad are (1) very specific, (2) a word for word duplicate of the first two allegations against Hafizullah. -- Geo Swan 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - npov tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption
Replaced transcluded image with inline image - npov tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 12:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WRT claims of WP:OR
This edit concerns me.
 * 1) I am concerned that this edit calls on the authority of WP:OR for a very large edit, but with very little explanation;
 * 2) I am concerned that this edit seems to carry on a serious misconception -- that wikipedia policies forbid the use of primary documents. The wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not forbid the use of primary documents.  It says that if they are used they should be used with care.
 * 3) I am concerned that this very large edit has removed direct quotes -- I do not believe a direct quote should ever be described as WP:OR
 * 4) I am concerned that this edit excises a whole section that cites the "Classified Record of Proceedings and basis of Administrative Review Board recommendation for ISN 961", without any discussion;

I request fuller, more specific, explanations as to how the large blocks of material lapse from WP:OR. Geo Swan (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

When to use the one word edit summary "clarify"
This edit's edit summary contained just one word -- "clarify".

The contributor who made this edit has made essentially the same edit to hundreds of articles. I have asked them about this change on many occasions. I am very sorry to report that I do not believe they have ever offered an explanation as to why they think this change is appropriate.

The edit's one word edit summary, "clarify", really concerns me because the contributor who made this edit has used this one word edit summary on hundreds of edits. They have used it inconsistently. Some of those edits were mundane, or relatively mundane, but required more informative edit summaries. I am very sorry to report that some of their edits that carried the one word edit summary "clarify" were actually very highly controversial edits, edits over disputed editorial issues.

I have requested this before, and I repeat this edit one more time. Because their use of the edit summary "clarify" has been rendered meaningless through over-use, and through inconsistent use for a very broad range of edits, the retire this edit summary and make an effort to use more meaningful edit summaries. Geo Swan (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)