Talk:Nasser Najiri Amtiri

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 14:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

explanation...
The from the article violates the basic rules of Wikipedia. It is the own work of a Wikipedia editor who took a primary source combined it with other sources and then interpreted it in the image description. This is a violation of WP:OR. The fact that these are mostly primary sources has also further problems as it does not comply with the policies of BLP's of living people. So i see this topic as taken to the talk page and the image should not be re-included until consensus has been reached. IQinn (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

rough work
These links to the page numbers within the OARDEC documents may be useful to other contributors. Geo Swan (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another useful source is the The Guantanamo Docket. It is an interactive database provided and updated by the New York Times. The database is searchable and has the Pentagon documents (CSRT and ARB) included. Additional documents and reliable New York Times research regarding the detainees at Guantanamo are also provided. This is the link to the documents and research regarding Nasser Najiri Amtiri. IQinn (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

removal of valid and useful wikilinks
This article is one of a series that had a number of valid and useful wikilinks removed with an edit summary "unlink interpretation of questionable source". I don't think this is a sufficient explanation, and I don't think this removal of wikilinks was a good idea.

I think the wikilinks should be restored to this article and the other articles. Geo Swan (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Already explained and under discussion here and in a related discussion here. I have told you that and i have ask you multiple times in a friendly way to continue the discussions and to answer my questions. here and here and on other places. I think your behavior is disruptive. I would appreciate if you could answer the questions and continue started discussions. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)