User talk:Robp

Welcome!

Hello, Robp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Thanks for pointing out the error in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld's "controlling" plurality opinions. I have fixed it. Wikipedia is collaboratively edited, so if you see something that is wrong, I encourage you to be bold and correct it. Cheers and happy editing!--Kchase02 T 19:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld

It was not I who marked your adition as potentially dubious, but user:Geo Swan. I am not at all versed in law or quite aware of the case itself, but due to its high-profile nature, I thought it better to comment the statement out (notice I took care not to delete it entirely) until it could be properly sourced, which you did. I am sorry if my edit looked unfounded. Circeus 19:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for the smart-alec reply. It was the "dubious" I had problems with, not the edit. I'm still learning the ropes.(Robp 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Welcome again to Jihadpedia

Since you suggested, "if we had clearance, we could post an opposing story of some killer down there who deserves detention" that made me wonder (assuming you have better sources) whether you can dig up information on some of the former prisoners. For example, the Tipton Three were released before the CSRTs, and so we don't have anything other than the story from their POV.

Moazzam Begg did have a CSRT, and for a long time, the charges listed there were the only hint that he wasn't just an innocent teacher picked up in a massive sweep. (Here's the article back on May 2.) It was a stroke of luck that he had a previous record, and perhaps luckier still that he was dishonest enough to exclude it from his biography, or he might have managed to explain it away there.

Anyway, I thought I'd mention it so you could be on the lookout.
-- Randy2063 00:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]