Talk:Mohammed Fenaitel Mohamed Al Daihani

disputed picture
Replaced transcluded image with inline image - npov tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 05:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

revert -- see talk
I reverted a recent edit as per this discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

move
What is the source for the name that is used now? After i carefully evaluated the sources in the article and multiple secondary sources from search results. I plan to move the article to Mohammad Finaytal al Dehani. Any objection? IQinn (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Iqinn, um, did your careful evaluation skip the article's identity sections? You asked the source of the current name?
 * From the identity section:
 * He was identified as Mohammed Fenaital Mohamed Al Daihani on the Summary of Evidence memo prepared for his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, on 22 September 2004, on the Summary of Evidence memo prepared for his Administrative Review Board, on 22 April 2005, and on seven official lists of captives' names.
 * As to whether there are any objections. Yes, I am concerned over this suggestion.  The way I see it, as the person proposing the move I think it is your responsibility to offer reasons why the article should be moved.  I suggest to you, if you don't think it is important enough for you to show your work, and offer reasons for the move, then you should regard this as a sign that this move is not important enough to be performed.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As to whether there are any objections. Yes, I am concerned over this suggestion.  The way I see it, as the person proposing the move I think it is your responsibility to offer reasons why the article should be moved.  I suggest to you, if you don't think it is important enough for you to show your work, and offer reasons for the move, then you should regard this as a sign that this move is not important enough to be performed.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As to whether there are any objections. Yes, I am concerned over this suggestion.  The way I see it, as the person proposing the move I think it is your responsibility to offer reasons why the article should be moved.  I suggest to you, if you don't think it is important enough for you to show your work, and offer reasons for the move, then you should regard this as a sign that this move is not important enough to be performed.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As to whether there are any objections. Yes, I am concerned over this suggestion.  The way I see it, as the person proposing the move I think it is your responsibility to offer reasons why the article should be moved.  I suggest to you, if you don't think it is important enough for you to show your work, and offer reasons for the move, then you should regard this as a sign that this move is not important enough to be performed.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As to whether there are any objections. Yes, I am concerned over this suggestion.  The way I see it, as the person proposing the move I think it is your responsibility to offer reasons why the article should be moved.  I suggest to you, if you don't think it is important enough for you to show your work, and offer reasons for the move, then you should regard this as a sign that this move is not important enough to be performed.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As to whether there are any objections. Yes, I am concerned over this suggestion.  The way I see it, as the person proposing the move I think it is your responsibility to offer reasons why the article should be moved.  I suggest to you, if you don't think it is important enough for you to show your work, and offer reasons for the move, then you should regard this as a sign that this move is not important enough to be performed.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As to whether there are any objections. Yes, I am concerned over this suggestion.  The way I see it, as the person proposing the move I think it is your responsibility to offer reasons why the article should be moved.  I suggest to you, if you don't think it is important enough for you to show your work, and offer reasons for the move, then you should regard this as a sign that this move is not important enough to be performed.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As to whether there are any objections. Yes, I am concerned over this suggestion.  The way I see it, as the person proposing the move I think it is your responsibility to offer reasons why the article should be moved.  I suggest to you, if you don't think it is important enough for you to show your work, and offer reasons for the move, then you should regard this as a sign that this move is not important enough to be performed.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As to whether there are any objections. Yes, I am concerned over this suggestion.  The way I see it, as the person proposing the move I think it is your responsibility to offer reasons why the article should be moved.  I suggest to you, if you don't think it is important enough for you to show your work, and offer reasons for the move, then you should regard this as a sign that this move is not important enough to be performed.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As to whether there are any objections. Yes, I am concerned over this suggestion.  The way I see it, as the person proposing the move I think it is your responsibility to offer reasons why the article should be moved.  I suggest to you, if you don't think it is important enough for you to show your work, and offer reasons for the move, then you should regard this as a sign that this move is not important enough to be performed.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As to whether there are any objections. Yes, I am concerned over this suggestion.  The way I see it, as the person proposing the move I think it is your responsibility to offer reasons why the article should be moved.  I suggest to you, if you don't think it is important enough for you to show your work, and offer reasons for the move, then you should regard this as a sign that this move is not important enough to be performed.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mohammed Fenaitel Mohamed Al Daihani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080313135752/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/ARB_Round_1_Factors_001161-001234.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/ARB_Round_1_Factors_001161-001234.pdf
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5pBcmRbxD?url=http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTQxMWVkMjJlNWZiMmE3ZmRlYTM5MDU4ZWFlOTQxOGY= to http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTQxMWVkMjJlNWZiMmE3ZmRlYTM5MDU4ZWFlOTQxOGY=
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kuwaittimes.net%2Fread_news.php%3Fnewsid%3DNDIzNDE4Njg4&date=2009-07-31 to http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=NDIzNDE4Njg4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)