Talk:The Wire (JTF-GTMO)

Untitled

I am reverting this edit -- which was only explained by the two letter edit summary "ce". This article is currently at {{afd}}. The wiki-id which made the edit is also the wiki-id which nominated the article for deletion.

Nominating an article for deletion, or stating a delete opinion at {{afd}} should only be done when one figures the article is hopelessly unredeemable.

If the article at {{afd}} has slander inserted, the nominator has the same authority to remove it as any one else. But, it seems to me, that the appropriate thing for nominators to do during the {{afd}} is to leave the article alone, until the {{afd}} has run its course, and let those who are in favor of keeping the article have an opportunity to work on the article without interference. You said the article is hopeless, remember?

I have encountered some nominators who get so emotionally involved, and get such a sense of WP:Ownership over the validity of their {{afd}} nominations, that they end up vandalizing the article, trying to restore it to the state when it was nominated, or even stripping it of WP:RS, or otherwise gutting it.

I have no objection to those who are on record with a "delete" opinion editing the article -- once they have struck that "delete" -- because copy editing the article implies they think the article is not hopeless after all. Of course if the {{afd}}'s conclusion is "keep" or "no consensus" then those who voiced "delete" opinions are free to make good faith contributions. Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Any editor is encourage to improve articles, specially articles that are discussed at Afd. Your post here is entirely ad hominum to an extend were it is uncivil and disruptive as it is repeated behavior of the editor who has posted this uncivil post. By all respect your post is b..sh..t and shows that you have problems to assume good faith WP:AGF. We know you are the author of this article but that does not give you the right to attack other editors. Be careful you have shown a wide range of uncivil behavior recently and be aware that editors can be banned from editing Wikipedia because the community has strict rules against uncivil behavior.

Concerning my edit to the article. You may can explain witch article of the sources that are attached mention

It is notable for publishing articles aimed at the camp's guards, interrogators, and administrative staff that offer a different perspective on the detention than that offered to the general public.

I changed the text by removing the notable:

It publishes articles aimed at the camp's guards, interrogators, and administrative staff that offer a different perspective on the detention than that offered to the general public.

They call themselves notable? In witch of these sources they call themselves notable? Or is it your personal opinion as the result of valuating all the articles that has been attached to this sentence? Notable in witch sense? Could you pleas explain... IQinn (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

This information:

The publication and excerpts from it have been included in a fictionalized account of military life at Guantanamo.

has just been added to the article. I would like to ask the author to provide a few sentence quote from the reference that would verify this information. Thank you IQinn (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The link itself takes you to Google Books with the relevant portions of the book highlighted. (Page numbering below is Google's.)

Page 1 (definitions): "The Wire: Slang for the razor wire enclosure of Camp Delta; also the name of JTF-GTMO's weekly newspaper."

Page 36 (excerpt): "You never know who may be listening to your 'casual' conversations. 'Think OPSEC'. -- From 'OPSEC Corner,' a regular feature of JTF-GTMO's weekly newspaper, The Wire."

Page 50 (excerpt): "...and continually attempt to manipulate and distort our true purposes at Joint Task Force Guantanamo. -- From 'OPSEC Corner,' a regular feature of JTF-GTMO's weekly newspaper, The Wire."

Page 106 (excerpt): "So do your part to eliminate our adversaries' ability to elicit information. 'Think OPSEC'. -- From 'OPSEC Corner,' a regular feature of JTF-GTMO's weekly newspaper, The Wire."

Page 324 (author's notes): ..."excerpts from Camp Delta's weekly newspaper, The Wire, are authentic"

DCico (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. While thinking the first quotes do not verify the information the quote form Page 324 should be fine. You might also have a look at WP:OR and WP:Verifiability. Cheers IQinn (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Wire (JTF-GTMO). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TheWire-v6-i036-9DEC2005.pdf&page=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150927090609/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TheWire-v5-i17-22Oct04.pdf to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TheWire-v5-i17-22Oct04.pdf&page=11
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Wire_Issue48v8.pdf&page=4
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Wire_Issue10v8.pdf&page=3

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Wire (JTF-GTMO). 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 http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil%2Fwire%2Fwire%2FWirePDF%2Fv6%2FTheWire-v6-i036-9DEC2005.pdf&date=2010-02-02 to http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/wire/wire/WirePDF/v6/TheWire-v6-i036-9DEC2005.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Wire_Issue26v8.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)