Talk:Presiding Officer (ARB)

earlier draft
I had an earlier draft in my user space, which I temporarily pasted in here, and am now deleting... Geo Swan 13:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

responsible use of tags
A misleading tag, and several other questionable tags, were applied to this article. That tag, when instantiated, directs readers to the detailed explanation on the talk page.

The no doubt well meaning contributor who applied the misleading tag neglected to complete the process by leaving an explanation of what triggered their concern the article was misleading.

I will remove that tag after a reasonable period of time, if no explanation is supplied. Geo Swan (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "responsible use of tags" ?


 * "Responsible use of" is most frequently use in phrases like:


 * "Responsible use of drugs" - "Irresponsible use of drugs"
 * "Responsible use of fireworks" "Irresponsible use of fireworks"
 * "Responsible use of land mines" "Irresponsible use of land mines"
 * "Responsible Use of Gene Technology" "Irresponsible Use of Gene Technology"
 * "Responsible use of alcohol", Irresponsible use of alcohol"
 * "Responsible use of guns","Irresponsible use of guns"


 * I do not believe it is helpful nor necessary to start an discussion over responsible or irresponsible use of tags.


 * A friendly message like: "Could you pleas provide me with the rational for the {misleading} tag" would have done the job.


 * I hope you now understand my concerns and i would suggest you may avoid such wording in the future. Possible? IQinn (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

explanation for the misleading tag

 * Thank's for asking me about my rational for adding the misleading tag. Many of the reasons are already self explained by a brief look at the article and a look at the other tags and page history. Here is the summary.


 * The article is solely based on two primary sources closely affiliated with the subject.


 * No references that appear in reliable third-party publications.


 * Article is part of the highly controversial topic Guantanamo.


 * Main parts has been written by just one author.


 * The articles solely author has show a strong POV.


 * NPOV needs to be checked as it is solely base on United States government documents.


 * Some information in the article are not verified by the sources.

It is the large sum and combination of all these factors that make me believe that the tag is justified. No objection for removal after a substantial amount of these problems have been fixed. IQinn (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no real suggestion that anything in this article is actually in question. Unless and until that becomes the case these tags are spurious. Rich Farmbrough, 04:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC).