Talk:Ibrahim Mahdy Achmed Zeidan

explanation
I reverted some unexplained or poorly explained edits.

Another contributor decided to remove all instances of wikilinks to member of al Qaida, Taliban member, a dozen or so similar wikilinks. They did so to this article, and close to one hundred others.

It honestly seems to me that no explanation for this wikilink excision has been offered that is based on any wikipedia policy or convention.

The individual who excised these thousands of instances of valid and useful wikilinks has objected to their restoration in other articles -- removing them a second time, claiming their action was "under discussion".

I am prepared to consider that this contributor honestly thinks they have offered a valid explanation for this wikilink excision. But I have read their explanation they offered, such as it was. That contributor has strongly objected to having their arguments paraphrased in the past -- without regard to multiple correspondents offering their assurances that the paraphrasing was a good faith attempts to try to make sure they understood the argument being advanced. So I won't paraphrase their explanation, such as it was, here. I will simply say I found it insufficient, not policy based, not really policy compliant.

If the contributor who excised the wikilinks really thinks they have a policy compliant explanation for the wikilink excision I request they:
 * 1) Leave the wikilinks as per status quo ante -- for now;
 * 2) Rephrase their argument, because I made my best good faith efforts to find policy compliant reasons the previous time, and just couldn't find them.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find the excising contributor has restored their version of other articles, with edit summaries like: "Undid revision 347924756 by Geo Swan (talk) under discussion on your talk page as you know", ,


 * No, I absolutely don't know that. One doesn't get to make controversial changes, fail to offer a meaningful, substantive, policy-based justification for it, and then claim no one can touch it, claiming it is "under discussion".  One particularly can't do this when one made no attempt to seek other contributor's opinions prior to making the contentious series of edits prior to initiating them.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That link might refresh your memory. Do you want me to post you also the link to the many other discussions we had about this issue?
 * You have refused to continue the discussion despite i have ask you in a friendly way many times. Instead you went edit warring over a set of articles. I have reverted these changes. Once again i ask you to stop this disruptive behavior. IQinn (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)