Shawisland
Welcome!
edit
|
Renton
editYou're right about Renton, 20 miles just came off the top of my head. I had changed it to 15 based on a Yahoo city-to-city search but somehow must have neglected to save that change. But about 10 is fine (the Renton article says "immediately southeast", which would also work). I still plan to add more to the article but feel free if you have any pertinent info. Gr8white (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see the associated talk page for an answer to your edit summary comment. Thanks! Tan | 39 17:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
editThanks.
It wasn't your comment that disturbed me. It was this one -- a response to yours.
Yes, your original observation is correct. Three years into their detention the Supreme Court forced the Bush Presidency to provide the remaining 558 captives to learn (some) of the allegations that justified their detention.
38 captives were (finally) determined to have never been enemy combatants after all. 530 of the captives had their "enemy combatant" status confirmed. In March 2006 the DoD was forced to publish documents from those Tribunals were the captives attended. In September 2007 the DoD published further documents from those CSR Tribunals, and further documents from the later annual Review Boards. That is a total of about 2500 documents, a total of something like 10,000-20,000 pages of documents.
Almost every one of these 558 captives have an article that relies on the documents the DoD was forced to publish. Then there are articles about KSM, Abu Zubaydah, Al-Nashiri, the three captives tranferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in September 2006, who the CIA now acknowledged they subjected to waterboarding, and eleven other captives transferred from CIA custody.
201 captives were repatriated prior to the CSR Tribunals in late 2004. We know about some of them from press reports. About two-thirds of them have disappeared without a trace.
The other sixty captives are men (or boys) repatriated to their home country prior to the convening of the CSR Tribunals, who we know through press reports.
There are press reports about some of the captives who had a CSRT convened on their behalf. And two thirds, or three quarters of the captives chose to testify on their own behalf.
The Respondent who followed up on your comment has a bad habit of misquoting the policy documents he or she claims as authority to argue for deletion. They had earlier joined with another returning challenger to claim or imply that all previous {{afd}}s of articles about Guantanamo have closed as "delete".
So I thought it was necessary to set the record straight, and prevent anyone from interpreting their comment as if 140 articles had been deleted.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. You might find this reply I made interesting: Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs.
St. Joseph College Cavite City
editJune 2008
editSorry about that! You reverted to the wrong version and it looked as if you were reinstating it. Block lifted!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
edit
editHi there, i mentioned that u edited basophil activation, hence iam new to wikipedia, i would like to know what exactly u chaneged and how i can retrace future editing actions? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menue (talk • contribs) 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
ok, i just found out :), thank you anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menue (talk • contribs) 00:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Linking dates
editHi, Shawisland. I noticed that in your clean-up of Recognition of same-sex unions in Connecticut, you linked several dates. The linking of dates for autoformatting purposes has been deprecated. See WP:MOSDATE for more information and details. I've removed the links in that article, but if you've added links to other articles you might want to change them back. The current standard is to format dates in accordance with the standard usage in the region with which the article is associated: so "October 12, 2008" for US-related topics, and "12 October 2008" for UK-related topics, and so forth. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Unwarranted removal of material
editThe material you removed here was well sourced and your removal was unwarranted. --CyclePat (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Oregano
editDon't take this wrong, but what the fuck makes you think that anyone reading the English wikipedia gives a shit about the Urdu word for Oregano? 68.218.222.8 (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, in case you're confused, I'm talking about your edit from May 5. 68.218.222.8 (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Animal Cops has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Doesn't seem to be a notable franchise. All sub-pages redirect to the main article. Very few sources found
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)