Talk:Bessam Muhammed Saleh Al Dubaikey

Could you please explain...
Could the contributor who made these two unexplained edits please return and explain their reasoning? Geo Swan (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Replaced by "Guantanamo detainees known to have been released" a category that i have added at the same time. IQinn (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion, several years ago, about the Guantanamo categories. The clear consensus from that discussion was that Category:Guantanamo detainees known to have been released should supplement not supplant the categories you deleted.  Of course if you have some reason to suggest the one category should supplant the others you are perfectly free to advance your arguments.  But could you please stop this initiative until you have taken in the feedback of other contributors?  Geo Swan (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have the link to this discussion? No offense but recently i have heard about a lot of discussions that never have been taken place. Category:Guantanamo detainees known to have been released is sub-category of Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. In that case we do not include the parent category. IQinn (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest move
I suggest the rename the article to Abdullah Ali Salih al Debakha al Siari based on the Google search results and reliable secondary sources IQinn (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In other discussions I asked you whether you were arguing that we should use the names captives said were their names, in place of the names the DoD used on its 2006 official lists of names.


 * While you said that was not your position, you subsequently used many arguments that implied you wanted to follow their preferred name.


 * I know you attribute great scholarship to the NYTimes choice of names -- although they have never implied any scholarship.


 * I regard constitency as very important, and I find your ongoing unwillingness to have a central discussion of the common issues around considering whether or not to rename these articles extremely disturbing. Geo Swan (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No that is wrong i do not think and never thought we should base our name choice on the primary source of the DoD when we have better sources. I suggest to base the name choice on reliable secondary sources as we always prefer reliable secondary sources. Do you have other reliable sources than the NYTimes? The NYTimes even list the alternate names of the detainee.


 * I told you before the NYTimes is one of the most reliable sources with the highest reputation for fact checking in the world. And i suggest you bring it to the administrator notice board if you want to challenge common knowledge.


 * No need for a central discussion I find your continues filibustering posts and discussions disruptive and it prevents us from further improving the articles.


 * Did you do at least a Google search for the best name of this article. Did you check my suggestion in the search and compared it with other sources? What sources do you have that supports the name that is used now? IQinn (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)