User talk:Geo Swan

2004, 2005, 2006-01--2006-06, 2006-07--2006-10, 2006-10--2005-12, 2007-01--2007-06, 2007-07--2007-09, 2007-10--2007-12, 2008-01--2008-06, 2008-07--2008-09, 2008-10--2008-12, 2009-01--2009-03, 2009-04--2009-06, 2009-07--2009-09, 2009-10--2009-12, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2010-03, 2010-04, 2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07, 2010-08, 2010-09, 2010-10, 2010-11, 2010-12, 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-03, 2011-04, 2011-05, 2011-06, 2011-07, 2011-08, 2011-09, 2011-10, 2011-11, 2011-12, 2012-01, 2012-02, 2012-03, 2012-04, 2012-05, 2012-06, 2012-07, 2012-08, 2012-09, 2012-10, 2012-11, 2012-12, 2013-01, 2013-02, 2013-03, 2013-04, 2013-05, 2013-06, 2013-07, 2013-08, 2013-09, 2013-10, 2013-11, 2013-12, 2014-01, 2014-02, 2014-03, 2014-04, 2014-05, 2014-06, 2014-07, 2014-08, 2014-09, 2014-10, 2014-11, 2014-12, 2015-01, 2015-02, 2015-03, 2015-04, 2015-05, 2015-06, 2015-07, 2015-08, 2015-09, 2015-10, 2015-11, 2015-12, 2016-01, 2016-02, 2016-03, 2016-04, 2016-05, 2016-06, 2016-07, 2016-08, 2016-09, 2016-10, 2016-11, 2016-12, 2017-01, 2017-02, 2017-03, 2017-04, 2017-05, 2017-06, 2017-07, 2017-08, 2017-09, 2017-10, 2017-11, 2017-12, 2018-01, 2018-02, 2018-03, 2018-04, 2018-05, 2018-06, 2018-07, 2018-08, 2018-09, 2018-10, 2018-11, 2018-12, 2019-01, 2019-02, 2019-03, 2019-04, 2019-05, 2019-06, 2019-07, 2019-08, 2019-09, 2019-10, 2019-11, 2019-12, 2020-01, 2020-02, 2020-03, 2020-04, 2020-05, 2020-06, 2020-07, 2020-08, 2020-09, 2020-10, 2020-11, User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/list

List of Al Farouq training camp

Hi there, I've repaired the broken wikitable at Al Farouq training camp. Please look, if I've deleted any material in progress. Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

DRV on Seth Finkelstein

Hi: Could you please weigh in on the ongoing DRV for the Seth Finkelstein article?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

British troops warned not to turn prisoners over to the USA

Hmm. This looks important. But where the heck does it belong? Geo Swan (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

British troops who hand over prisoners in Iraq to US military personnel could find themselves facing prosecution, according to a legal opinion compiled for parliament. The finding has led to calls for the British government to rethink its current policy and investigate how the US treats its prisoners, and whether torture is employed against them.

• Duncan Campbell (2008-09-29). "Soldiers who hand prisoners to US could face legal action, MPs warned". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-09-29. mirror

This has been the case as long as i can remember as far as the orders given to british squadies, the Royal Irish Rangers were definitely told not to hand prisoners over to the americans (durring the invasion of Iraq) and that was before much of the Bagram airbase and Abu Ghraib prison info appeared. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is good to know. Canadian soldiers, on the other hand, seem to have routinely handed over prisoners to the USA, and now routinely hand them over to Afghan authorities. Some other NATO countries insist on conditions when they hand prisoners over in Afghanistan. But we don't. Geo Swan (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heres the AIDE MEMOIRE ON THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT given to every british squady before going to war. http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/749088E6-E50A-470E-938D-459A74481E88/0/jsp381.pdf it notes that UK domestic Law applies. The MoD website has published its legal advice to troops on its website so you may want to read it if thats your thing.^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is the problem (my POV). On one hand its a war against terror, on the other hand the inmates are not POWs. So this handbook or sheet don't state the right facts. E.g. if I would catch a squaddy, he will be not under the protection of the Geneve Convention, because they (the squaddies and GIs) don't treat me like a POW, although torture me or hand me to country authorities which do so. And, you know, to state this -- even to write it down in wikipedia -- is anti-american. 213.39.144.46 (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Anon your comment misses the point a bit, the usa uses one set of interpretations and britain uses another and Canada a third. The position in britain is you have the MoD getting its own lawyers to decide what is legal and to advise their members (armed services personel) on their legal liabilities. The position of the british army is clear, everyone is covered by the GC's and ECHR. The difference in this case is the ECHR which is why Canada (not a signitory) can give the prisoners to America and British forces can't. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

While, under the Bush doctrine, captives apprehended in Afghanistan were not considered Prisoners of War, captives apprehended in Iraq were considered POWs, fully protected by the Geneva Conventions. Agent Triple X was returned to Iraq, by the CIA, when it was recognized that, as an Iraqi citizen, transporting him outside of Iraq was a breach of the Geneva Conventions.

Thanks for the link to the MoD document. Geo Swan (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Serial accuser of anti-Americanism

I'm not all that concerned about it really — for the most part I ignore edits from random IPs unless they're making a valid point or asking me something. I almost immediately reverted it as random-IP trolling, which, from their edit history, appears to have been the case. HalfShadow 01:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

9/11 hijackers

Dear GS, I've replied on the talk page of Sherurcij. I don't think you understood what we were talking about. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm impressed with you arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (3rd nomination). Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Justinfr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Patrick M. McCarthy etc.

I have replied on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replied again on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Joan Sinclair

When I wikilinked Sinclair's name, it was as a part of the Uncategorized Task Force. I have no knowledge of or interest in the topic per se and was only doing relevant cleanup to accompany the categorization work. So I can't do much about your predicament, but I am sorry that the admin is not responding to you. Fishal (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And just to clarify, no, I didn't create the article. I have no idea whether the article existed when I created the link. Fishal (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Prescott Prince

I tried to add an infobox, but seem to have deleted your image. Can you add it back to Prescott Prince ? Pustelnik (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jihadistan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jihadistan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihadistan. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Flowanda | Talk 22:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

List of assassinated people

My comment on the cause of death AFD discussion was referring to the assertion that the compilation of a list of people by cause of death was unnecessary because that information should only be contained in the biographical articles of those people (or in certain cases, if the cause of death was notable): "If cause of death is important, the only place it should be mentioned is the article about the person (or eventually, in the article about anorexia nervosa there can be some people from the list mentioned." I wasn't really commenting on the placement or need for references in a list where they exist in the subject's article (although I believe I have put forward such an argument elsewhere), however my interpretation of the comment "Not to mention that there are no sources, save biographies." was that the nominator was indeed suggesting that each list item should be referenced in that list, and a wikilink to a subject's referenced biography was not sufficient. My comment wasn't really addressing this, I actually checked some of the lists themselves and the few I checked seemed pretty adequately referenced. My opinion is, however, that where references are in the biographies, then sourcing the list is a simple matter and deletion is unnecessary. --Canley (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Istvan Kovats

Greetings!

Thanks for your message. Yes, it is a familiar photo. I can upload this photo, with my identity card with my signature. The "valiant" was the biggest military honor in Hungary. I paste here, a bronze valiant honor what I found on the google: http://bedo.hu/kepek/adat/militaria/711/0189.jpg

It's me with the pictures, when you saw the picture, please remove it, because there are some personal informations. http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs132&d=08434&f=pa210107939.jpg

Cheers! MagyarTürk (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for your reply.

If I understood you correctly then Valiant was Hungary's highest military honor -- the Hungarian equivalent of the Victoria Cross or Congressional Medal of Honor.

But I looked, and I can't find the policy I thought I remembered. I am going to keep looking around.

Should you uploade the pictures of the medals? Sure!

I looked at your other photo. Thanks. I was willing to just take your word for it. I am not the person you need to convince. Sorry, I don't know how to delete that photo, now that I have seen it.

The wikipedia has a private way to establish unpublished information from the people involved. It is called the "ticket" system. I have never used it myself. As I understand it, a committee of trusted volunteers receives verification of things like this -- but privately.

I think the way the ticket system is supposes to work is that for every fact that needs to be verified, a ticket number is issued. That committee decides, for this unpublished fact to be verified, what info is needed.

I read a very interesting novel about World War 1, called "Sailor of Austria". It described separate civil services existing in Austria-Hungary, for Austria, and Hungary. The hero has Czechs and Croat and Italians, all from different corners of the Austria-Hungarian empire. It was very interesting.

I put a note about our conversation on the discussion about the deletion of the article.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice! I found a site about the Hungarian honors in the WW1. The valiant honor has three grades. Golden, silver, and bronze. There are also officer's variants. Pál Földi (writer, ex-colonel of the Hungarian army) has a book. http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6ldi_P%C3%A1l "A magyar gyalogság története" It means History of the Hungarian infantry. He also writes, and about the valiants, about history of the 69. Imperial and Royal regiment. Cousin of my grandfather has a book, 69. Imperial and Royal regiment, this book has now just 19 copy. Book writes about my ancestor, he named and called him the tallest soldier in the regiment etc. Should I ask the book, and take a photo? http://www.aranypengo.hu/coins.php?category=2&category2=0 Category of the highest Austrian-Hungarian honors, not all there. For example there is not the Golden Valiant. :( But you can find a lot. Istvan Kovats had more. What he is wearing on the picture, thats the Cross of Regiment (century, team, etc). But I am not sure. Balaton Arts cultural group also wrote about him, that he is valiant. I couldn't paste here, because the Wikipedia wrote it is spam. By the way if you go to google, write it "69. Gyalogezred" You will find the site. It's on the G-portal.

It is the book what is very rarely: http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu/bibl/mil/ww1/konyv/v/bibJAT00354135.html

Thanks for the answer! Cheers! MagyarTürk (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

Disputed prod

Let me know here or on my talk page which dated prods you want restored, I'll do it for you, no fuss no muss. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Userfication

Hi. Here is the content of the article you requested. I closed the afd and deleted it in order you can fix it before reposting. You can as well move it to a subpage. Greetings. --Tone 07:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

cut and pasted to User:Geo Swan/review/Thomas Hartmann (USN). Geo Swan (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

US S.O.F. in Iraq?

Is there an article on the current and/or currently being discused SOF's for the US troops in Iraq? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, and an S.O.F. is a Standard Operating F ? I know of no Standard Operating F in Iraq. But it sound like a worthwhile topic, and I will help you -- if you find the sources.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

PML

Thank you for the kind words at the AfD. I was myself more concerned that Modestprotest is a SPA on a mission, as the user has already spoken toward their own COI regarding this article diff1diff2. Interesting that another SPA spoke toward its deletion back in August diff. And this earlier protester had the same habit of not signing as did the early remarks of Modestprotest, and the manner of writing was surprisingly similar. I strongly suspect there is a connection here that is being overlooked. This article has become "the battle of the socks". Can a connection be made between these two SPA's? Who's a puppet of whom? I found this long-winded response fron someone signing as Petermaxlawrence to be quite eloquent diff, but the respones to his response again underscored the fact that Modestprotest seems to have a very personal stake in deletion diff.

I was particularly unhappy with the lobbying of me after I declared a neutral wish to see if the article could be saved diff. Certainly the socks created more drama than neccessary, and were blocked accordingly, but the original nomination was too personal an attack on the article and subject to be ignored. Modestprotest is showing too great a knowledge of wiki for a newcomer, so is either a sock, a meat, or a new ID for an old user (SPA puppetry confirmed). Trying to subvert policy to nominate an AfD just ain't right. And in the nomination itself, a simple "possible COI /notability issues" would have sufficed... but this? Yikes. Further, the repeated coloring of the deletion discussion with the onus of sockpuppetry was disingenuous at best. Now everyone at the AfD will read the dissention and accusations and might opine based upon those perceptions. Hopefully, editors will, like yourself, take a look at the "before" and the "after" and make a judgement in as neutral a frame of mind as possible.

Perhaps its time now to open a puppetcase for Modestprotest being a puppet of the editor Garydebussy? And just whose puppet is the one-edit Garydebussy? Is the original SPA comment from the talk page last August too long ago for a checkuser to look into? After all, what's good for Gander is also good for the goose. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is something fishy about this {{afd}}, and the various accusation of sockpuppetry.

Maybe I am missing something, but the evidence the admin who placed the sockpuppet ban used to lump User:Petermaxlawrence in with the sockpuppets did not seem to establish that to me. If the note that claimed to be from the real individual is from the real individual I am sure being lumped in with the sockpuppets would further disgust him.

I have been the target of sockpuppets, and have been accused of being a sockpuppet. I hate sockpuppetry. But I know that being the target of misplaced accusations of sockpuppetry is also very unpleasant. Do you think my explanation to User:Modestprotest was both clear and tactful?

Thanks for your note. Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You explanation was clear, tactful, and courteous in the extreme. However, with Mp now "admitting' COI when such was obvious 2 weeks ago, a new puppet case may be in order. The explanation for admitted puppetry aside, this is not the way to do it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Geo Swan - I added a note to the top of my talk page about my userid and concerns about sock puppetry.

To clarify the sockpuppet cases I opened about for "Petermaxlawrence", I made that name the puppeteer because he claimed to be the real Peter Max Lawrence, and it was my concern that all the other names I listed in the case were also him, used to edit the article and avoid scrutiny and to make comments about the open AfD. Now I cannot prove that user Petermaxlawrence is the "real" Petermaxlawrence, but the fact he knew so much about the history of his own article, plus the names of people I have or other users have been referring to (like professors or students he thinks is trying to slander him) made me safely assume it was the real PML.

If that is not the case, maybe the Admin who blocked those names could clarify in more detail why they were blocked.

Modestprotest (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! One of the qualities I admire is being able to admit an error -- a quality rarer than I would like. So, congratulations for that.

About my concerns with the CheckUser -- if I understand the events, various IDs that have fallen under suspicion of sockpuppetry built up the article. Then someone claiming to the real PML asked for it to be deleted. If the suspicious IDs were puppets of the real PML, why would the real PML request deletion? Some kind of tricky ploy?

I made one assumption that an editor with an editing style very similar to that of a bad editor was a sockpuppet of the original. I am afraid I allowed myself to be inappropriately sarcastic to someone I now believe was an innocent newbie whose editing style had surface similarities to the bad editor. That would have been about March 2005. I have tried not to make that mistake again. I know sockpuppetry is a very real problem. But I think half or more of those accused of sockpuppetry are innocent. And I think it is a mistake to base the confirmation of sockpuppetry on apparent similarities of editing style.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked him the same question on the talk page. If he really wanted it to be deleted, why didn't he do it himself? I took his whole "I don't care about it's demise" attitude as to come off sounding aloof, as he had just happened upon this article about him. And then a bunch of socks appeared trying to defend the page and question who I was. I don't think he wants the article deleted at all. Why would he when he made it? Which is why his friend JonSajda commented about it in the AfD saying "there is no valid rationale for requesting the deletion of this bio page by anyone other than the artist." And yet, made a huge case for why it shouldn't be deleted. I truly believe that the real Peter Max Lawrence came on as "Petermaxlawrence" to make it seem like he never knew about this going on. But it was a ploy to play ignorant. I wish I knew how the admins who blocked the accounts came up with the decision to do so. If they came from the same IP address I suppose that would be enough evidence. Anyway, when a guy admits that he has used several aliases in the past, I wouldn't put it past him to have sockpuppets. I know it's hard for me to go about this without being called out for it myself, but the main reason, like I said on my talk page, is to avoid my real identity being affected (as he called out Jarrett's name and even posted a link to his myspace profile on the top of his talk page) Modestprotest (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I've been also trying to make up for coming off too strong in the beginning. It was mostly because I felt I was dealing with the real PML on here and that sort of riled me up. But I have made several attempts since then to explain my position and have civil conversations with those interested in this case. Thanks for your understanding. One last thing, to justify my contribution to Wikipedia and this case, there has been no mysterious names popping up supporting me or my comments whatsoever. It's just been me and being alone in this position has been difficult. But I respect the rules of Wikipedia and I've made no attempt to mess with the system other than trying to protect my real identity. Thanks again. Modestprotest (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Notorious

I have very serious doubts that pointing to pre-9-11 newspaper accounts is a worthwhile metric for justifying calling the treatment "notorious".

I don't understand this comment. Could you explain it? Feel free to reply here or move it in its entirety to my talk page or even the Taliban treatment of women talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Amy Bechtold

I have nominated Amy Bechtold, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Bechtold. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Icewedge (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Patrick John Rice

Yes, this was basically an attack page that User:Icewedge tagged with {{db-person}}. "Patrolling" a page is a way to mark a new page to show that someone besides the author has reviewed it. Unpatrolled pages are highlighted in Special:NewPages. The details are at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages and Help:Patrolled edit. Cheers, FreplySpang 23:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wire

My view of this issue has changed almost 180 degrees since I first encountered it several years ago. I actually advocated that the dab page be the primary target for evolution. I now see this a something that is not worth getting very upset about. I think of the decision as being similar to making a choice in a phone directory about where things should belong. The directory is most useful if people find listings in the place they are most likely to look. I stumbled on "The Wire" when I followed a link to the article and was quite surprised that it ended up on the dab page. I then looked at "What links here" and discovered that there were quite a number of links that ended up on the dab page, and considered fixing all of them to point to the article. It was at that point that I decided to move the article. Personally, I think the preponderance of links pointing to the TV show (there were practically none -- if not none pointing to anything else) is reason enough. Even the importance argument points towards the TV show. It has received international recognition, and is often mentioned as "the best TV series ever". Ultimately, I don't think this is a big deal. There is a link to the dab page at the top of the article, and the few people looking for some other version of "The Wire" will quickly find their destination. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your view on consensus. However, there are many situations where things could be one way or the other and people spend lots and lots of time discussing them only to end up at "no consensus". Sometimes, "no consensus" means "leave things the way they are", but sometimes that just means that things remain stagnant and moribund. That is where WP:BRD comes in. I was bold in changing the page based on my reading of policy, but I was also more than willing to put it back if there was a consensus to do so, and/or my reading of policy was shown to be in error. Neither happened in this case. So I think things are ok the way they ended up. I'm still willing to discuss my reading of policy, and the facts about which version of "The Wire" is most prominent if you'd like. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied

Hi Geo Swan,

I just wanted to make clear that I didn't mean to be dismissive when I said "I think you know what you meant" on my talk page about Amy Bechtold's AfD. The story of False Geber is actually quite pertinent to this AfD, after some pondering. And you're right– that was your point in a way wasn't it, that transparency should not take precedence over efficiency when building an encyclopedia? Anyways, I will try to tread more carefully in the future, with more concern for notability and better investigation when 'contributing' to AfD. — Synchronism (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dhiab v. Bush

Since you recreated the redirect, I've restored all its history, so you can see for yourself: when I deleted it, it didn't redirect anywhere, as you'd blanked it. Nyttend (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Greetings

Hi geo, thanks for your nice message - it's good to receive friendly greetings here from time to time, rather than messages from the many harbingers of doom around the place. I'm OK, still not very active as a quick glance at my contribs will reveal, but still hoping to become more productive over time. I keep an eye on things, every couple of days or so, and try to respond to messages and fix minor stuff on my watchlist.

I hope you're well also, and best wishes to you too.

--Cactus.man ✍ 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

That was two years ago... I don't remember anything about it. If not for Wikipedia logs, I would say I never seen the article. Why I did not notify you? Dunno, maybe two years ago it was not required, maybe I was lazy, maybe something else. I really don't know. Renata (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The above is in reply to this query. User:Renata3 is currently an administrator. When I participate in {{rfa}}s, I ask the candidate if they think they can have the character to acknowledge mistakes. For the record I think it would be a mistake to regard this reply as an apology, or even as an acknowledgement of error. Geo Swan (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on an article you recently created

Hi there. I've been taking a look at the articles you've been working on, and most of them are impressively detailed work, and in an underlooked area - your editing has been a great credit to Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure one of your recent creations is so positive: USA's secret war in Somalia. This article, at the moment basically a stub, seems to me to have inherent POV issues - as it claims that a secret war has been taking place based on the reports of a single article. That's not sufficient sourcing for such a controversial claim, in my view. Furthermore, there are issues with the article name - if I took it to AFD, I'm sure some people would argue for its deletion based on that alone.

After looking around a bit, I found that we do in fact have an article on American military operations in and around Somalia since 9/11: Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa. That suggests U.S. involvement in the Somalian conflict is not so secret after all. That article has its own problems - it's poorly developed, and seems to report only the official U.S. point of view - but if you want to work on this subject, I would say that article's a good place to start. Can I therefore suggest you merge your new article into that one - thus avoiding having to take it through a tiresome deletion discussion? Thanks, and happy editing. Terraxos (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Maine School of Law

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Maine School of Law, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Maine School of Law seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Maine School of Law, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexander and How to Break a Terrorist

Good afternoon. I just restored the Matthew Alexander article, deleted in October on the basis of self-promotion, as the recent media attention gives us good reason to make those revisions available again. Alexander is the author of How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq and it probably adds no value to have both articles, especially since "Matthew Alexander" is an admitted pseudonym and only of interest in the context of the latter. Redirecting one sounds good, but since you started the latter article I want to let you choose what to do. --Kizor 13:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I declined a speedy on it, but I agree with Kizor that it does not justify two articles. I'd normally suggest a merge to the the person, except that its a pseudonym and there seem to be more refs for him than for the book.-- though you could still use all the refs in either article. But expect to see it very soon on afd in any case -- An additional book review would help, of course. DGG (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

-- I am the author. Does Wikipedia have the right to publish my real name? Does that not subject Wikipedia to civil penalties by putting my personal safety at risk?

Though editing from your IP Address and publicly broadcasting it for interested parties...would probably reduce your claims that we endangered you ;) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea well, that is gone now too! Let me know privately if there is more to this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I deleted those edits, as provided by our WP:BLP policy. But Sherurci is correct--it is remarkably difficult to fully remove information or to keep confidentiality on the internet. If it is of major importance to you, you can request oversight of both the information and your edits confidentially from WP:OTRS. This will make the information invisible even to administrators. But it has already been exposed, and may have been captured elsewhere. DGG (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh hey, guess what was just oversighted? --Kizor 00:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To GeoSwan, you proposed that the book article be merged into the author article. A number of us have opined here that it would be best to merge the author article into the book, on notability and BLP grounds. Would you care to comment? Grazi, Skomorokh 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Abderrahman

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Abderrahman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Linking a first name to someone perhaps harboring a suspected terrorist, basded on one source, seems not the best way to create articles... Delete and recreate as a disambiguation between all truly notable Abderrahmans seems the better solution.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fram (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've user-fyied the page as you requested. Deletion reason was the same as above. The link to the page is via your original request at my talk. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 17:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for El Mashad v. Bush

On 14 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article El Mashad v. Bush, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Zaid v. Bush

Hi again. Who is the petitioner/plaitniff in this case? Mark Zaid, the attorney? Bearian (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Students for a Democratic Society (2006 organization)

As you have been involved in editing this article you may wish to participate in this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Sack

I have restored the article into the destination space, with some reluctance. The bio was clearly non-notable and written like an advertisement and in my mind fully warranted deletion. Unless circumstances have changed any new article about the same person would undergo the same. Unless you are wanting to create an article about the American journalist Kevin Sack? He has won two Pulitzers and probably does warrant an article - I hope you're not getting the two confused? Qwghlm (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Kevin Sack, the City of Toronto worker, does not merit coverage here. I had written an article that linked to Kevin Sack. That article stirred some controversy, and I saw that an article on one of the journalists had existed, and been deleted. I don't need the review copy anymore. Thanks. Thanks for restoring the full history so I could see for myself that no version of the article had ever been about the journalist.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Great - I've deleted the copy as you don't need it any more, hope that's not a problem. Qwghlm (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami

I have nominated Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ameen Mohammad Albkri

I have nominated Ameen Mohammad Albkri, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ameen Mohammad Albkri. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: your assistance please...

I've restored and moved the pages to your userspace as you requested. As for your other concerns - they would be best dealt with at WT:PROD. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mohammed al-Asadi

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mohammed al-Asadi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed al-Asadi. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

your assistance please...

I was surprised when I went to add material to the article on Brian Mizer to find it had been deleted. Mizer recently applied to get permission to visit captives 10011 and 10026 at the top secret camp 7 where "high-value detainees" are held.

The record shows you deleted that article. I would appreciate you userifying the article, its revision history, and talk page, to User:Geo Swan/review/Brian Mizer 1. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. There's not much there though. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

What "expected courtesy"? I don't feel bound by any of your mistaken expectations. And quite frankly, it isn't me who is at fault here. Your article was so totally devoid of any assertion of notability, or any secondary source, that its deletion was a foregone conclusion. In fact, it seemed to lack any kind of merit, so I didn't imagine the Afd would involve any kind of debate, and didn't consider it necesary to notify anybody. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied here. Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you aren't a good faith contributor. And if the Afd had been controversial or important, then I would certainly have notified the creator. However as this seems to be such a big issue for you, I will always notify the creator of any article I nominate for Afd. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Executive orders

You asked on my talk page for me to look at Executive Order 13355 and Executive Order 13356, both of which have only a single primary source citation, the executive order itself. I do not believe that all or most executive orders are inherently notable (as User:BD2412 suggested in a recommendation you quoted), and I believe that articles about executive orders should have secondary sources to establish notability. On the other hand, a cursory search indicates that secondary sources do exist as to Executive Order 13355 and Executive Order 13356. Thus, I personally would see no point in nominating them for deletion, unless it was someone's goal to stimulate people to improve the articles by adding those secondary sources. But, in any event, that does not mean that the articles should be left as they are, because they do need to get those secondary sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Peter Murphy (JAG)

I have nominated Peter Murphy (JAG), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Murphy (JAG). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. SpinningSpark 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

GTMO individual

Hi. Is this guy that one? I figure you'd be able to identify him and assess whether a redirect and an update is needed.  Sandstein  15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I updated his article. Thanks for the heads-up. Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:AmericanTerrorism

I replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 5#Template:AmericanTerrorism. I apologise for not bringing up my concerns on the talk page first, but I wanted to bring them to greater attention, so went straight to TFD instead. In hindsight, that was probably the wrong decision. Terraxos (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi

If this guy's indeed held at Gitmo, think you can improve his article and fill it out a bit? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, created Ali Soufan today; figured you might be interested in filling it out a bit with the Guantanamo information since I see he's linked on User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/documents/US interrogators. Cheers. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Arsala Khan (suspected al Qaida financier)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Arsala Khan (suspected al Qaida financier), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

doesn't seem notable

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Article3 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

disputed. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Blood Colony

Here's the before: diff. I think I did okay with it. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:78.34.128.236

Dear Geo Swan

I read the message you posted at User talk:78.34.128.236. I believe that this user is a sockpuppet of a user who has been indefinetly blocked. I believe this is because another user, User:78.34.145.54, started up [1] an AFD for the Chesley Sullenberger article. This IP stated on his/her talk page, "Thanks, but I'm obviously not new to Wikipedia, what with making an edit like this one. Just (currently peacefully) evading an indef block here. Anyway, cheers."[2] I believe User:78.34.145.54 and User:78.34.128.236 are the same, because User:78.34.128.236 said on the AFD discussion page: "I have already withdrawn my AfD nom." [3]. Since I believed User:78.34.145.54 was a sockpuppet of an indefinetly blocked user, I reported that IP on the admin noticeboard: [4]. The general response was that the IP had done nothing bad yet, but keep a close eye and report it again if the user does cause trouble.[5] If you do feel this person behind the two IPs is causing trouble, please feel free to report User talk:78.34.128.236, and consider adding the evidence linking User:78.34.128.236 and User:78.34.145.54 together which I believe shows by extension that User:78.34.128.236 is a sockpuppet of an indefintely blocked user. Cheers for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the various posts from the IP addresses in the 78.34.xxx.xxx range are from a single individual. Due to DHCP it is not unusual for a contributor to post from a range of IP addresses, particularly if they are using a telephone modem, not broadband. Their ISP would issue them a different IP every time they connect.

Do you use Reverse DNS lookup? That range traces to the RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam.

I agree the RIPE user has lapsed from the civility policies. But I haven't seen any lapses that I would consider worthy of being blocked.

I'll keep an eye on these IP addresses.

• User:78.34.128.236
• User:78.34.145.54
• User:78.34.128.135

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, a block shouldn't be evaded. Gary King (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, 78.34.x.x is me. And the dynamic IP address is due to my ISP (not Amsterdam btw, but fairly close to it). 78.34.129.171 (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

re grumpy comments

Re User talk:78.34.128.236. Among the articles I've written are Secondary antisemitism, Daniel Gottlob Moritz Schreber, Hermes Phettberg, Tom Liwa, Gert Postel. I don't claim to be the perfect contributor and I'm sorry if I come across as grumpy, but... I am. Somewhat, at least. I just resent certain trends that appear to become stronger as Wikipedia grows. Recentism or "newsfadism" is among those. Again, sorry for upsetting you. Please don't take it personally. It's the phenomenon I resent, not any editor. 78.34.129.171 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your reply. I won't resent it. But I will encourage you to do your best to curb the appearance of grumpiness.

Do you know what Benjamin Franklin wrote? He suggested that young men, who resented being more junior than older people, and those with more money, should merely pretend to be humble. Merely pretending brought the same rewards as actual virtues. Have you ever considered, well, merely pretending to not be grumpy? Geo Swan (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean a bit like in Malcolm Holds His Tongue? It got him a peptic ulcer! Also, that's just typical: The one time I'd link to some nn TV episode article, there is none! So typical! :D Cheers and see you around. (Seriously though, thanks for the impulse, I promise I'll try to keep it in mind.) 78.34.129.171 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Kurdish terrorists

Can I get your thoughts on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_18#Category:Tamil_terrorists? Many thanks. THF (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fun game

Let's play "Which agency fucked this up?", it's my favourite game! AM 770 is saying that it was Zarqawi, not Abu Musab al-Suri who ran the safehouse/camp - which would seem to make some sense, except Zarqawi's Jordanian ("Abu Musab", Father of Musab, "al-Suri", the Syrian). Note that they're also saying the interrogation took place the day before Arar was renditioned. Not "several weeks' before...and Khadr didn't actually identify him until he was coerced/pushed into saying he did. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zaid v. Bush

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Zaid v. Bush, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Nothing here independently notable of Waleed Said Bin Said Zaid article.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. THF (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've already merged the two articles' content. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Category:Global_War_on_Terror_captives.27_habeas_corpus_petitions THF (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I contacted you, in any case, as I have before. I can't possibly admonish every other user on this site for every error they make; I can only remedy it by making the situation easier. I am very busy in real life. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. in this case, I thought that merger was appropriate. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I handled this incorrectly. I put the PROD notice on one article I ran across, and figured that you and I would have five days to discuss, and Bearian interceded and merged. After Bearian interceded, I discovered there were 100+ other articles with identical concerns. I asked him how I should handle, and he suggested WP:AN, which is the only place where it's being discussed, and I gave you notice that it was a community-wide discussion. You are correct I should've raised it with you first, which is what, incidentally, I got told at WP:AN.

Anyway, your argument that merger is inappropriate because one of the habeas cases "might" blow up contradicts WP:CRYSTALBALL. There are already individual articles about individual Guantanamo detainees, and creating content forks about cases that are not yet notable (and may well be mooted in the next 24 hours) is a bad idea; the articles themselves are simply indiscriminately listing court filings without regard to the significance of the filing. THF (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks.

You misunderstand my argument. I don't think we should cover these cases because one of them might blow up -- and thus merit coverage. I think they already merit coverage, and are all in the slow process of blowing up now, as we discuss them.

Some contributors assert that the guidelines and policies require topics to have "significant press coverage" -- which some of these articles don't have. But no-where do the guidelines and policies say that. There are whole fields, serious fields, like the history of science, which will never have press coverage.

These cases are (1) unprecedented; and (2) remarkable. I don't know how many US citizens and US residents have writs of habeas corpus filed on their behalf every year. Let's pick an arbitary figure. Let's suppose it were 100,000. How are these habeas petitions remarkable, when almost all of those 100,000 aren't? Two reasons. The 99.9% of habeas petitions in the continental US that don't merit coverage merely reflect the standard, predictable and unremarkable functioning of the US justice system. The Guantanamo captives were held for years, without charge, without ever being told why they were being held. Many of them, like Bismullah (Guantanamo captive 968) I mention below, were the victims of mistaken identity, or of false denunciations -- mixups which could have been cleared up shortly after their arrival in US captivity if their detention had proceeded under the rule of law. Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

TFH, I started to respond to your latest comment on WPANI, but it scrolled off. Response to that here...

TFH, I don't think any serious contributor has a problem with you, or I, or anyone else, raising our concerns, so long as we do so in a fair way, that complies with policy, common sense and common courtesy. I don't think anyone is trying to get you to stop trying to improve the wikipedia.

You asserted that only the cases that reached the SCOTUS aren't "problematic". No offense, but I suspect you would not have written this if you were more fully informed about some of the other cases, like Parhat v. Gates? Hozaifa Parhat was the only captive whose DTA appeal ran all the way to conclusion. Or How about Sliti v. Bush -- Muhammad Hamid Al Qarani, who for the last several years was the youngest captive, was recently ordered to be freed due to his habeas petition. His judge ruled that the US had captured this 14 year old boy based on nothing. The allegations against him were amazingly flimsy -- like that he had been Abu Qatada's lieutenant, in London, in 1998, when he was an eleven year old schoolboy, who had never left Saudi Arabia. Senior DoD spokesmen, hinting at classified info, tried to defend this bizarre claim. Judge Leon found nothing to support it.

You ask: "Why focus on habeas cases that are going to be mooted by an Obama executive order in the next couple of weeks when it's clear that several experienced Wikipedia editors find them problematic?" Would you argue that we shouldn't cover slavery, in the US South, because Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation? Of course you wouldn't. Slavery remains an important part of US history, even once it was outlawed. Exactly how far are you going with your suggestion we halt our efforts to provide meaningful, comprehensive coverage of Guantanamo related topics, because you think Obama is going to render them moot?

Let me remind you, their cases aren't moot yet. Realistically, if Obama were to sign an order closing the camp today all these cases would remain worth covering.

1. Some of the captives are going to remain in US custody, even if the Guantanamo camp is closed.
2. As the release of Bismullah this week shows, the Bush administration failed to determine which captives were innocent bystander, victims of mistaken identity or false denunciations; which were ordinary combatants who should have been accorded POW status; and which were combatants who seemed to have stripped themselves of POW status by committing a war crime. Obama may feel he has to order the US military to redo making this determination all over again, from start, this time complying with the USA's Geneva Convention obligations.
3. Almost all of the captives who were set free remain saddled with the determination that the USA considers them "enemy combatants".
4. These cases are the first step for former captives who want to sue the USA for kidnapping them.

These cases will remain important, no matter what Obama chooses to do. And why am I working on them, rather than some other topic that you, personally, think would be more valuable? Because the topic interests me. I think it is important. And I want to understand it more fully.

Forgive me for pointing this out, but I don't think what you have written is internally consistent. You would be totally correct to resent if other contributors tried to order where you made your contributions to the wikipedia. But when you question my working on this topic because "it's clear that several experienced Wikipedia editors find them problematic" -- isn't your comment exactly the kind of order you thought you perceived, and you resented? I am an experienced contributor too. And I expect wikipedia contributors who have a concern over my contributions to engage in reasoned civil dialogue, without regard to whether they consider themselves more experienced than I am, or lesss experienced; and without regard to whether the community has entrusted them with administrator authority.

In your third point you expressed some vague criticism of these articles. I'll acknowledge these articles would have been a better if I had tried to create fewer in the time available to me, and spent more time on each one. But if the topics remain worthy of coverage, they remain worthy of coverage, even if the current instance of the articles need work. I do my best to followup on every serious, civil, specific concern I see expressed about my contributions. I followup on some of the vague or rude concerns too. If you are really serious, I would appreciate you being specific about your concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll copy your remarks and respond at Wikipedia:AN#Category:Global_War_on_Terror_captives.27_habeas_corpus_petitions. THF (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

Happy to move the discussion to the wikiproject, but wanted to address between the two of us something you complained I didn't address:

I am going to repeat one of the points you avoided acknowledging, clarifying, or refuting. You seemed to be expressing the view that other contributors were trying to order you around. I agree you would be totally justified resenting if other contributors here tried to order you to work on topics in which you had no interest, or to stop working on areas you were interested, with vague justifications. Yet you are suggesting I should stop working in this area because "...several experienced Wikipedia editors have a (vague) concern."

The reason I didn't address that was because I suggested no such thing, and I didn't want to embarrass you or sidetrack the discussion to point out how badly you misread what I said. My point was simply that Birgitte's argument against my complaint suffered from WP:KETTLE problems because it was equally applicable to her working on the articles in the first place. Hence my preface your argument works both ways. THF (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

Well, the article doesn't establish notability (as Wikipedia isn't news). However, I apologize for tagging it, I did not know you were working on it (and there was no {{inuse}} tag). I'm apologize. TheAE talk/sign 04:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Chesley Sullenberger

On January 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chesley Sullenberger, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A fuller explanation...

... of the tora bora coordinated on my talk page. Sorry I took a while to answer, my wikipedia editing is rather sporadic nowadays. ¨¨ victor falk 01:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I owe you thanks

Stumbled across Tariq al-Sawah's weigh-in numbers this morning, had a good morning laugh at the...incompetence of somebody registering that number (were there perhaps three guys standing on the scale at once? Was al-Sawah smuggling a golfcart in his pants?) without noticing. Cheers. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

See WT:ITN

Bottom of page. -x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.190.232 (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

k

Renamed it while working on User:Sherurcij/Gitmo; the list of the January arrivals as much as I can make it, going to keep digging around, your weigh-ins were a great help. I notice you have ten weigh-ins on the 12th, and ten two days later...wondered if there was any chance they were the same batch of twenty weighed over two days, or a separate shipment. *shrugs* Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Mohammad Golab Mangal, Laghman Province, Afghanistan.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Mohammad Golab Mangal, Laghman Province, Afghanistan.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Geo Swan, In response to your question, I work in Helmand and spend a lot of time with local Afghans and have dozens of great pictures I'd like to share. Unfortunately I don't have the time to get up to speed using wikipedia and find it resource intensive at the moment. My current challenges are (i) is this the right way to correspond with you or is there some email-like system on wikipedia? (ii) I uploaded two photos (Mangal in a bazaar and a girl with water can) and thought I'd completed the licencing section properly. But one has just been taken down. What didn't I fill in correctly and how do I undo it.

A Wiser World (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

claim of racism

Well all about arab bombers that is racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AK-196 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to leave my reply on Talk:Casio F91W Geo Swan (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notability of Brandon Neely

A tag has been placed on Brandon Neely requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Sorry, but this guy became notable for this one occasion, that's no reason for an article. De728631 (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with De728631 here: that's WP:ONEEVENT. Anyway, I'm not that dogmatic about it. Would it be alright for you if I userfied it for you to work upon? Lectonar (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Userfied per your request; incidentally, I see my position as an admin as a pure janitor (that is why I told you I'm not dogmatic about it). The whole BLP business is a very nasty one (and I won't comment on it); I'm quite sure we will end up with flagged revisions in the end, like the german wikipedia, and everything will be very regulated. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: your question

As stated in WP:ONEEVENT and in WP:Notability (people), "When a person is associated with only one event,... election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the event article in summary style."

That is why don't think we need a standalone article for Neely. Yes, he is notable for speaking up in the Guitmo issue but that's all about him. He should have his role in relevant articles but not a bio of his own. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Slahi

Hello GS,

Thanks for adding a new section. Do you have another article source? CP doesn't mention another lawyer or quote the judge saying "tenuous." I'd change "men's" to "their" lawyer if they share a lawyer.

I have a screenshot of Slahi from a Der Speigel article. Is there a way it can be added to the page? I'd contact the copyright owner if I knew how and thought use would be granted.

Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Slahi is still imprisoned with no reasonable expectation of release, I'd support "Fair Use" claim of using an image that Der Speigel obtained (likely from his family with implicit release anyways). Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 13:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted the URL on Sherurcij's talk page. Here it is: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,583193,00.html. Article was posted October 2008. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category: Prisons

Hi!

Because it doesn't exist, I have changed Category:Prisons of the United States in Category:Extrajudicial prisons of the United States to Category:Prisons.

--Biezl (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For cleaning up the Eldridge Cleaver talk page. What you did is often thankless work. I wanted that to change, at least once. In admiration, David in DC (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but not thankless this time. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories and Articles

You asked me to refresh your memory, or let you know if I thought that consensus had changed, with regard to how having an article supports the existence of a category. There is a way in which having an article supports a category - it by showing that the category is of encyclopedic merit. This happens when an article is effectively a main article is for a category, as Bird is for Category:Birds or as Guantanamo Bay detention camp is for Category:Guantanamo Bay detainment camp. The logic is that if 1) the subject is of encylopedic merit and deserves an article and 2) there are multiple related articles on sub-topics then there ought to be a category to help the reader find those articles on sub-topics.

This logic is not applicable in the case of the article Mosa Zi Zemmori and Category:Casio digital watch detainees because Mosa Zi Zemmori is ostensibly a biography of an individual detainee, not an article on the subject of Casio digital watches and Guantanamo detainees. Indeed, there is no such article, merely a couple sentences in an article on a particular model of a Casio watch.

Once again, I want to reiterate my recommendation that we get rid of most of these articles on individual detainees. Please read the section Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event. Most of the detainees are notable only for their detainment, and we can not write a complete biography of their life. These are exactly the sort of people where we should not have an article that purports to be a biography, we should only have a redirect to a discussion of the larger event. GRBerry 17:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And I have responded to the other aspects of your query on my talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Linda Fiorentino

I responded on the article talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yvonne Bradley

PJHaseldine's comment had me half wanting not to do this, since I resent being told what I have already said I will do as though I am an errant schoolboy. However, human reaction aside, I have obviously userfied the article as you requested per the reasons you gave. Let me know when it's ready for prime time. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley‎. Chillum 15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Yvonne Bradley's deletion review is now taking place here.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rebecca S. Snyder

I have nominated Rebecca S. Snyder, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca S. Snyder (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Andrea J. Prasow

I have nominated Andrea J. Prasow, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea J. Prasow. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Peter C. Bradford

I have nominated Peter C. Bradford, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter C. Bradford. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Edmund Burke (human rights lawyer)

I have nominated Edmund Burke (human rights lawyer), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Burke (human rights lawyer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Angela L. Campbell

I have nominated Angela L. Campbell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela L. Campbell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Charles H. Carpenter

I have nominated Charles H. Carpenter, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles H. Carpenter. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John A. Chandler

I have nominated John A. Chandler, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Chandler. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pamela Rogers Chepiga

I have nominated Pamela Rogers Chepiga, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rogers Chepiga. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Joshua Colangelo-Bryan

I have nominated Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Colangelo-Bryan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James R. Crisfield

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article James R. Crisfield, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. THF (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of James R. Crisfield

I have nominated James R. Crisfield, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James R. Crisfield. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories on userfied pages

Hi: Don't forget to temporarily comment out category links on userfied pages -- otherwise, they still show up as articles in the category. Ray^Talk 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray: I was always curious how to resolve categories for userfied articles. What do you mean by "comment out"?

To leave an invisible comment, enclose the text you intend to be read only by editors within <!-- and -->. For example: <!--If you change this section title, please also change the links to it on the pages ...-->. Putting that around the category tags until things are ready to go out into the wild should do it. Ray^Talk 23:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

GSwan: You might be interested in knowing that your talkpage is included in Category:Guantanamo Bay detainment camp--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

your assistance please...

The record shows you deleted Shailendra Singh (Indian politician). Can you tell me where it was redirected to point at?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a redirect to Shailendra Singh, which was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shailendra Singh. Cheers, Amalthea 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Banners

Some of your sub-pages seem to have the WikiProject Biography banner on them. Project banners are only to be used on the talk pages of articles and should never ben on user pages or sub-pages. Would you please remove all banners, tags and anything else that would categorize a sub-page as if it were an article page? Thank you.

JimCubb (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Will A. Gunn

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Will A. Gunn, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Subject fails notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed this PROD. I'm not sure what the right AFD outcome would be, but I actually found an approximation of an independent biographical source, so I gave the article an almost total rewrite and removed the PROD. (I kept most of the first sentence.) GRBerry 22:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jeffrey J. Davis

I have nominated Jeffrey J. Davis, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey J. Davis. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jim Dorsey

I have nominated Jim Dorsey, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Dorsey. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Joshua L. Dratel

I have nominated Joshua L. Dratel, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua L. Dratel. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AN thread

There is an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard thread that may/may not relate to you located here. ∗ \ / (⁂) 09:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Jojo's Death

I responded to you on my talk page.--MisterBorgia (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip.

That has always been a sort of gray area. If someone wrote it offsite, is it still protected by copyright and therefore ineligible? Thanks for clearing that up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Shayana D. Kadidal

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Shayana D. Kadidal meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Shayana D. Kadidal. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article.

Samhita Mukhopadhyay

Hi there! Thanks for your help in the discussion on Jessica Valenti's deletion. If you get a chance, I could use your perspective over at the current debate on Samhita Mukhopadhyay's article for deletion debate. Thanks!! RMJ (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your lawyer bio work at AfD

Hi Geo Swan,

It pains me to see someones efforts tossed aside. I regret that I'd have to agree that most of the material can't stay as it is, in mainspace, because no reputable source has previously provided such material. It's possible that the material can be reassemble into other articles, or that you could put your work together somewhere else. In this case, I'd suggest that you wait for the AfDs to finnish before requesting userfication.

I expect that, in future, someone like you will publish something covering these lawyers. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to anticipate such sources (at least not in mainspace, you might geet away with it in userspace). Your work, itself, is not detrimental to wikipedia, but allowing it would be a dangerous precedent, making it harder to hold back more and more tenuous subjects.

If you do userfy any material, out of respect for the GFDL, I hope that you will make sure that you have a version accompanied by full attribution, i.e. with the full history intact, even if the only contributor was yourself. If you do move the material offsite, please be sure to provide attribution to all authors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I don't know if you saw my acknowledgment of tunnel vision, in a couple of those {{afd}}. I think a couple of the articles THF nominated do merit inclusion. He asserted that Rebecca Snyder only had one notable Guantanamo client. (Actually he said "barely notable".) In fact she had two. David Hicks and Omar Khadr, two of the most notable captives. Geo Swan (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abdul Zahir (Taliban leader)

I have nominated Abdul Zahir (Taliban leader), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Zahir (Taliban leader). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: your assistance please...

 Done. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:American captives in Kabul

Category:American captives in Kabul, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has changed a bit from the initial nomination, with some editors in favor of deletion. I'm not sure if that means you would like to comment further, but I thought I would at least let you know about the shift in case you weren't tracking it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your message to Gonzo fan2007

Re your message to Gonzo fan2007: Gonzo fan2007 is on an extended wiki break. I've been watching his talk page for him while he is gone. As for your question, the talk page should have been restored after the article was restored. I checked the revisions that were deleted and it was just the original editor stating what the journal is about. I don't think anything of long-term interest has been lost. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: I closed the DRV. The undeletion isn't controversial since the article was restored. The history and talk page is a little messy, but everything is back in one form or another. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV

Re your question here: I'm of the opinion that an article that was deleted by consensus 30 months ago and that had zero references isn't really a good starting point; my suggestion was to start fresh because really, that could only improve the article. As I'd already endorsed the deletion in the discussion, I left history undeletion to the discretion of other admins. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of Yvonne Bradley

Hi Geo Swan, User:Fritzpoll has asked for your comments about my request for the restoration of the improved Yvonne Bradley article to Wikipedia mainspace.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Joshua L. Dratel

I reviewed your page on Joshua L. Dratel, and did an independent google news and scholar search and concluded that not only is he notable, but that he is sigificantly more notable than the article which got me involved in this whole debate/discussion (David J. Cynamon). I would thus set re-creating the article on Dratel as a much higher priority than the Cynamon article. I honestly don't think the Cynamon article is all that important--I mainly felt so strongly about it because the decision reeked of disregard for wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would love to work together with you to re-create an article in userspace first on Dratel, and then perhaps on other notable lawyers that have been wrongly deleted. In the case of Cynamon, the article that was deleted was very bad so nothing really was lost...but it was the process that bothered me so much. I am fully committed that we could write very good articles on many of these lawyers--but i'd want to have them totally locked down--well-written, NPOV, and relying only on reliable sources. This will help create a consensus to keep the articles if they come up for deletion again. Cazort (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I also encourage you to create a new article for Joshua L. Dratel for all the reasons as stated by Cazort. Keep up the great work! Esasus (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Detecting fraud in data sets

The information you posted on my talk page about the weights of detainees is very interesting. There are a number of statistical techniques that can be used to detect fraud in data sets. More often than not, the people committing the fraud don't even take the most basic efforts to prevent detection of the fraud, so if it is egregious enough, it can be almost trivial to detect. Often, fraud can be separated from general sloppiness if there is enough data to establish that all of the errors, omissions, or anomalies tend strongly in a certain direction when the assumption that they were random errors would have led to a more random pattern. However, if the people were more careful at masking the fraud, or if the general slopiness greatly exceeds the amount of fraud, or if the data set is sparse or erratic (like the one here) it can be much trickier. If you'd like to email me to talk about this, please write to me via the contact form on the Merit Exchange home page. Cazort (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

et al v Bush

What's the status on your et al v Bush pages? Got like 50 broken redirects since the pages were deleted after userfication. Wondering if I should leave them be or delete 'em. Q ^{T C} 09:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, the redirect bot isn't running at this time, but somebody took care of em :) Happy editing. Q ^{T C} 02:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Lakhdar Boumediene.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lakhdar Boumediene.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stanley Barracks

I don't know much about them, I just read the article that stated "the Stanley Barracks were mostly demolished in 1953." - SimonP (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. The historic stone building, usually referred to now as the Stanley Barracks, were once just the officer quarters. They served, for many years, as a Maritime Museum. Many of the displays were moved to a new maritime museum at Harborfront about ten years ago. I thought for a while that the remaining exhibits remained at the old location. But apparently they were simply retired. I don't know what purpose the barracks are put to now. Geo Swan (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

I thought you might be interested in the image of the raid at China Daily for one of the high-value Gitmo detainees who faced charges for the embassy bombings. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting picture, interesting report. The picture probably would not survive a challenge if someone claimed {{fairuse}}.

The Pakistani computer engineer referred to in this story? I have forgotten his name, but there are a couple of remarkable aspects to his story. He had only been captured for a couple of weeks when Condalleezza Rice outed his capture. This ruined any chance of turning him into a double-agent. Rice seemed to have revealed his capture solely for short-term political gain. IIRC the Chief Justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court, the one Musharref dismissed, had started a serious inquiry into Pakistanis who had been disappeared. And this engineer was at the top of his list. If I am not mistaken, because Pakistani authorities had violated Pakistan's laws, by seizing this guy, holding him in secret, and failing ot lay charges against him, he was released. Geo Swan (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Noor al-Deen

A tag has been placed on Noor al-Deen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Purplebananasandelephants (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Shahzada

Hi, you asked about an edit that I made to Shahzada. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages), the items I removed from the page didn't appear to belong. Disambiguation pages are meant to be a list of links to Wikipedia articles, or may contains redlinks to articles which are likely to become wikipedia articles. The items that I removed didn't appear to fit the standards for disambig page items. In looking back at them, it may be that at least one of them could actually belong on the page.

I haven't been doing anything regarding disambiguation pages for over a year now, I'm not entirely up on the current standards. If you think that any of the items I removed may belong, feel free to put them back. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not attack users as you did in my userpage and instead focuse in the subject. You have no right in Wikipedia to assume that other users have no read about policies! I, have fully reviewed the history of edits in this article and nominated this article with full confidence. You have the right to vote and give your opinion and I have already responded to your comments. I hope I do not have to repeat myself. Regards. Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This warning is a reaction to this comment. I believe Parvazbato59 is mistaken to regard an appeal to consider the possibility they made a mistake as a personal attack. I explained why I reverted Shahzada back to when it was a disambiguation page. Geo Swan (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• If you decide to edit an article, make it right or your edits will be reverted next time. I corrected the link for "Shahzada(son of shah)" in article Shahzada as it had a dead link. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yvonne Bradley

How's it going? Is there anything I can do to help alleviate your workload Fritzpoll (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to shahzada, did not appear to be constructive as the article shahzada (meaning son of shah) already exists under shah, and therefore your edit has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Parvazbato59 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear user, this is not a comment, and not a "pointless personal comment" as you called it in your edit summery. I would highly recomment you to refrain from attacking users personally. Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe you know that the template you {{subst}}ed is only intended to be used for novice users. I know you are aware I provided an explanation on Talk:Shahzada, for the edit you don't agree with, because you replied to that comment. Leaving this kind of warning, on my talk page, over a perfectly valid edit, which, moreover, was explained on the article's talk page is not an appropriate use of this template. I believe that I could have used even stronger language than "pointless" in referring to it.

For the record I dispute that I have personally attacked you, or any other user. A suggestion you may have made mistakes is not a "personal attack". Please note: at the bottom of the edit page every contributor is warned that their efforts may be "edited mercilessly". Please regard civilly expressed substantive questions and comments as instances of the editing you agreed to when you made your contributions -- not as "personal attacks". Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned here and in the talk page, your edit was not constructive. I fully explained that one can NOT ignore the fact that when an article like Shahzada (son of shah) exists, it must be linked to the right place. You not only ignord it, but reverted that edit. Then you call my statement to you "pointless persoanl comment"!!! which word of that statemend was personal? This discussion is over.Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Shahzada

Just saw your reversion of my edits to the above. The detail in your version appears to be contrary to MOS:DAB, which reads "For people, include their birth and death years (when known), and only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name."(my emphasis). Can we agree on less detailed descriptions? Also on looking at the page again, I think the Abdul Matin section of the page should probably deleted.  – ukexpat (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is redirected to shah due to AFD result. Kind Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C) 02:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What's a Groubani?

• It would be a particular type of article that User:Groubani pioneered; he or she has created a large number of articles about the foreign relations between two given nations; thus, an article about relations between Australia and Austria would be called "Australia-Austria relations". Although there are other editors who have created similar articles, Groubani is seen more frequently than other editors. Some people see the articles as legitimate stubs that are consistent with Wikipedia's global approach; others feel that such articles should not be created unless there is evidence that one nation considers a relationship with the other to be significant. Mandsford (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair summary of how I feel. There's been one editor in particular (WilyD) who has done a great job in trying to rescue these articles, and in many cases evidence is turned up of news an ongoing cooperation between two nations, as was the case of Ireland-Zambia relations. My feeling is that there's been unreasonableness on both sides-- many of these are created from random combinations without checking to see whether two nations are working together on anything; on the other hand, some people still object to these articles even when sources are added (witness the Ireland-Zambia discussion). Thanks for asking my opinion on these. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Political Quarterly

Hi. There's a message of thanks for you from the author of the PC Pro article on my talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Commodore, or Captain?

Talk:William Bainbridge has comments by you about the rank or grade of William Bainbridge, USN. The title of "Commodore" was used as a courtesy title in both the US and British navies to indicate operational command and control over a squadron of ships, and the rank of Admiral was not authorized until 1862, long after Bainbridge was dead. You see that I agrree with your comments. Beyond that, it seems to me that Bainbridge should be described more fully in the introductory paragraph. A large print of Constitution vs. Java hangs in my dining room, so I know about that battle. Should I now carry on with revisions?--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA question

I finally answered yours :P --Closedmouth (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

Replaceable fair use Image:Animatronic depiction of waterboarding from Coney Island.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Animatronic depiction of waterboarding from Coney Island.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If the speedy deletion has been fully cancled and all requirements are now filled you aught to undo the notice on the page. Waterboarding#Animatronic_depiction_of_waterboarding_at_Coney_IslandEadthem (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. You only asked me one question (which seemed odd since you usually ask more than one?) and I don't think you came back to respond to it because that was kind of late in the RfA. But thanks for asking at least, it gets my thoughts out into the open. :) Happy editing! BOZ (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Could you please explain further...

I added the tag with the mistaken assumption that the piece was still publicly viewable. As is is not, and there is a well sourced section discussing the piece, I have no objection to the inclusion of the image, and you are welcome to remove the deletion notice (a fuller explanation of how this image is not replaceable would be a good addition to the fair use rationale). Could you please link to the page that discusses the need to provide a link to a free alternative? The tag itself states only that a free alternative would be creatable, it doesn't mention the need to provide one. The non-free content criteria are clear that images can only be used with a fair use rationale if they are replaceable, as opposed to replaced. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Empty references

Please refrain in the future from adding empty references to articles as you did with Coney Island waterboarding thrill ride. This is disruptive editing. Debresser (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

PhotoCatBot

Since you expressed concern about the algorithm that PhotoCatBot uses to identify stale reqphoto templates, this is to let you know that I did post the source code. It's at User:PhotoCatBot/Src/StaleReqphotoBot. Sorry about the delay. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting note

I just realised now that my article of disappeared-terrorist-never-found Abd Al-Rahim was in fact the same person as your Guantanamo-detainee article Abd Al Rahim Abdul Rassak Janko - so merged them. You may be interested to scan and see the videoclip of him, and photographs. Cheers. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Raven1977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Tnxman307's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TNXMan 04:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abdullah Shahab

I have nominated Abdullah Shahab, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Shahab. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Magioladitis (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Genius101's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Genius101 ^Guestbook 12:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My questions to you at WikiCommons

• Notice

If you are the same person as User Geo Swan on Wikimedia Commons, please check my message to you on your account there. Please also make a reply on my Wikimedia Commons account...not my Wikipedia account here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• replied... Geo Swan (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phillip E. Carter

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Phillip E. Carter, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Not seeing what I'd call "significant coverage" as called for by WP:BIO

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RadioFan (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

Dear Geo,

Your 2 images were passed by an Admin as you likely know (by now) but this is likely a one time deal. As an aside, what was your impression of Citizendium? I never edited there. I asked a contact of mine, who is now an Admin here, this question in 2008, and he said "all the action is here." This is my impression too. I know Sanger tries to create a better online dictionary but it seems that not enough people bother to edit there. They still lack an article on Ramesses II which is just incredible. I don't know what happened to Sanger's project but it doesn't seem to have caught fire...unlike Wikipedia with all its strengths and flaws. I can create articles like this here but frankly I doubt even Brittanica even knows about this obscure temple. I think this is the strength of Wikipedia. The weakness is it attracts crackpots, POV pushers and nationalist warriors--the bane of any sane discussion. Any views? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your brief remarks. I too wish Citizendium well. Its just that the project feels very lonely...as if you are the only person editing here apart from an overseer. There are many basic articles which are missing there. I even saw some vandalism there which surprised me. This doesn't surprise me here on Wikipedia sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your notes on my talk page

Maybe you and I got off on the wrong foot over the Douglas Feith article? Perhaps my comments and editing came across as unnecessarily aggressive or antagonistic. That wasn't my intention, certainly, and I'm sorry if you were offended. My approach to BLPs is sometimes more aggressive than many editors are used to, which is something I have to keep in mind when trying to quickly improve articles with contributors who are regular editors. I think the results bear out the general object of my editing on this particular article, but I'll try to be more moderate in the future with my approach.

From your notes on my talkpage, I get the feeling that you've taken a negative view of our interaction on the Feith page and that this may have colored your interpretation of unrelated events - my username change and fact tagging minor elements of your Bush Six article. You may not be aware that I've been editing regularly for some time - not as long as you, perhaps, but long enough to be cognizant of name change etiquette and when its appropriate to discuss article issues on the talkpage. I don't mind constructive criticism, but I think there is room on Wikipedia for differing personal styles and I would hope that you can accept that not everyone will share yours. At any rate, I hope that if/when we edit the same area in the future we can do so with a fresh start and no hard feelings. Thanks, Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Listas for non-English names

Hi - thanks for your message on my talk page. I had a feeling that some of the 'listas' entries I'd been adding were wrong, but I was adding it to every BLP I could find because another user had urged me to do so (see higher up my talk page). I apologise for my mistakes - I realise it isn't very helpful to try to sort a name that doesn't correspond to the English format of firstname-surname. In future, I'll only add the listas or defaultsort parameters when I'm certain of how a name should be listed.

By the way, if I haven't said this already: you're the guy who's responsible for creating all the biographies of Guantanamo Bay detainees, right? I've come across your work a lot on Wikipedia, and I just wanted to thank you for it. Unlike all the people creating pages on porn stars, internet celebrities, or their own companies, you're actually doing something important here. By recording all this information for posterity, you're providing a valuable service - to Wikipedia and to the world. I guess this probably sounds trite, but in all honesty, I don't think there's any other editor whose contributions I appreciate more. Robofish (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

I started a lot of the Guantanamo articles. But other people have made big contributions too. I think Sherurcij has touched just about everyone. Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Maulana Mahmood Madani

Hi

Could you clarify what you meant in your edit summary here?

Cheers pablo_hablo. 16:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I left the {{refimprove}} tag on because I thought that the article could do with some more references to support the text. It is annoying when people tag articles rather than have a look for a reference themselves (although I do this myself sometimes if I have no time, because editing the page adds it to my watchlist and I can return when time allows). pablo_hablo. 17:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Zabihullah Mujahid

The entire content of this article when I deleted it was:

<<A Taliban spokesman.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jvpjOKsien5NBMUGFTXxbbLSx5Fg>>

Obviously, I have no objection to you or anyone else writing a proper article on this person.

Also, I don't delete my old talk pages, I archive them. There is a link to the archives at the top of the current talk page. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Note there is a page at Zabiullah Mujahid, I have redirected Zabihullah Mujahid there as a likely alternative transliteration. pablo_hablo. 09:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Guryak truck bridge

Hi, I added the cleanup tag because of a couple things:

• The title is lowercased, whearas even in the article you reference it is uppercased.
• The article references how fast and on budget it was by an organization. Wikipedia is not an place for advertisement about how good a company may or may not be.
• It's a near copy-paste of pieces of the article in the reference section. It's not complete copyright violation in my opinion, but close.

It should be rewritten so that it matches Wikipedia's quality standards in my opinion. Leave any response on my talk page. Thanks. AeonicOmega (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tackling your concern in reverse order:

• I am concerned by your assertion that you consider my contribution close to a "copyright violation". Please review Fiest v. Rural. "Facts" can't be copyright -- only specific representations of them. Paraphrases are not copyright violations.
• I am straining to take your second concern seriously.
• Ditto. Geo Swan (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Winchester_model_1200.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Winchester_model_1200.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...

You have already exposed your views on AFD notifications on my talk page, and I have taken note of them. There's no need for a rerun, thank you. Raoulduke47 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please...

Could you please not revert the edits without studying them? Your revert of my bot on Evan Kohlmann created all that bold text in Evan Kohlmann#Publications and Evan Kohlmann#References which really shouldn't be there... please understand that I don't at all mind you're bringing this up, but the reverts seem a little pointless to me. The bold text really shouldn't be there. Thanks! (there's a more full description of this at the ANI thread) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I know it puts Kohlmann's name in bold in the references. I consider this an unfortunate side-effect worth putting up with because it will make it easier to re-use the references in other articles. Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My personal feeling on this is that each article should look good, and having a bunch of unwanted bold text in an article is worse than just not having someone's name linked if a reference is cut-and-pasted. That's just my opinion, but I think that it is the general feeling on this topic. I will look into starting a discussion after my semi-wikibreak in order to confirm or refute this perceived consensus. Thank you for your concern! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT & listas Values -- Suggestions

Hi!

You have expressed concern about the nature of DEFAULTSORT and listas values and have deleted at least one incorrect listas. By merely deleting the incorrect listas value you caused the page to reappear in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and there is a good possibility that the incorrect value will be reapplied.

• When you find an incorrect DEFAULTSORT or listas value on a page please replace it with the correct value and copy that value to the other value so that the DEFAULSORT and listas values are equal.
• Please go through all the biographies on which you have worked and ensure that each article has the correct DEFAULSORT value and each Talk page has the correct listas parameter.

I have tried to become informed about the naming conventions of the cultures in the Middle East but I do not pretend to understand them. I do know that most Arabic names are fine as they appear but I strongly suspect that Afghani names are not.

The goal is to get the number of "trivial" pages in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, the pages that can be sorted by their PAGENAME, down to zero so that the non-trivial pages can be identified easily when they appear. Your assistance in this will be greatly appreciated. JimCubb (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

After I delete an incorrect "listas" I check the atcual article, and delete its incorrect {{DEFAULTSORT}}. So any rogue bot or robot-assisted editing tool that relies on it will not find incorrect data.

WRT to your suggestion that incorrect DEFAULTSORT or listas fields should be replaced with the correct value -- well the 600 or 700 pages on articles about individuals with Arabic names on my watchlist have generally gone through more than one renaming. So replacing the incorrect name with the name that is (temporarily) the correct name doesn't seem to hold any value. I'd be much more willing to add a tag, maybe a {{NoListasOk}}, to protect the article from robots.

A {{NoListasOk}}, or reasonable equivalent, should have been created at the same time as the {{DEFAULTSORT}} and the use of listas parameters. Geo Swan (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that it is so difficult for you to be constructive and helpful. I am not asking you to go through the 700 pages on your watchlist and apply the correct values. I merely ask that you correct incorrect values when you find them. I have been through several times the number of pages that are on your watchlist, resolving defaultsort conflict, applying defaultsort values and applying listas parameters and have not been harmed by the experience. There were more than 2000 pages after the letter Z altogether.

{{DEFAULTSORT}} is a magic word in Wiki markup and was "created" to handle the hundreds of thousands of articles that would have to be sorted in a way other than the page name, Hamid Karzai and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example. Not everyone with a biography page follows Arabic naming conventions, not even all of those with Arabic names.

As noted above, it will not do to have Category:Biography articles without listas parameter clogged up by those pages that you have decided do not need a listas parameter value so these articles' talk pages will be assigned listas parameters and the articles themselves will be assibned DEFAULTSORT values. I am afraid that you will find little support for your deletions of such values.

JimCubb (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No amount of sympathy, on my part, is going to alter the fact that initial obliviousness to the fact that billions of individuals have names that should not be shoehorned into the inherited lastname-surname naming scheme. No amount of sympathy, on my part, is going to alter that well intentioned bot authors, and well intentioned volunteers, have created an enormous mess.

I understand that you are frustrated by the idea of Category:Biography articles without listas parameter having articles end up back in it because I removed bogus listas parameters.

I am not sure, from your response, that you actually appreciate my concern. Two categories would be sufficient if every biography was for an individual for whom a listas parameter actually made sense. But since there are billions of individuals for whom adjusting the sorting to accomodate an inherited lastname-surname doesn't make sense are you sure that just two categories are sufficient?

You have been through several times the 700 articles I mentioned? Well, over the last N years, I have been through those 700 articles several times. I added an html comment to most of those articles that said:

The following categories contain articles about individuals who almost all have names that follow the style for Arabic names. Arabic names don't have European style surnames that are inherited, father to son. So, there is no point changing the order in which they are sorted in the categories. Thanks!

That request was routinely ignored.

When I used to politely ask those volunteers whether they were aware that it didn't make sense to treat Arabic names as if they had inherited, none of those volunteers ever tried to explain the concerns you raise today about Category:Biography articles with listas parameter and Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. Some of them, a few of them, grew aggressive. One guy insisted that, not only should Arabic names be sorted on an inherited surname, he or she insisted that the "al" part of the name should not be considered part of the surname. Why? Because this is the English wikipedia goldarnit.

Let's be clear -- the current situation is an enormous mess. The fault lies with a surfeit a hubris and lack of foresight on the part of whomever first thought up the idea of automating sorting. This mess requires a rethink, from square one, on the part of you and your listas colleagues. Getting frustrated with me, for drawing this mess to your attention, is an instance of "shooting the messenger".

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

First, anyone who says that all persons should fit into the "lastname, firstname" sorting scheme is absolutely wrong and is acting against guidelines. I know that a couple of years ago some extremely misguided editors ran things like bots to force pages into that scheme. Those times should be over and at least three of those editors have promised me to keep their hands off of sort values. (Those times resulted in the Ptolemaic kings' being sorted by their epithets. Ptolemy I Soter was sorted as "Soter, Ptolemy I". He is now sorted as "Ptolemy 01".) Not even all Europeans fall into the scheme. Titled persons almost never do. Be very happy that you are not involved with Icelanders. (For some categories they do but for Iceland-specific categories they don't.)

Second, as has been explained, the bots that are working on DEFAULTSORT and listas parameter values are taking their values from the other value. The people who are working are doing that as well as constructing values. The object of the exercise is to get a valid value for each on each Biography article. I and the ones I know about who are working are being very careful to follow the conventions that are applicable to the person involved.

Quadell has been kind enough to go through some of the Arabic names on the Category:Biography articles without listas parameter page and added a DEFAULTSORT value. He used a pipe "|" instead of a colon ":" but a value was inserted. (I asked him to do this because his name figured quite prominently on the history of the Arabic Naming Convention article and its talk page.) I went looking for a talk page on Category:Biography articles without living parameter to use as an example of my first and second point and the one I found is almost too good.

On 15 May Quadell put a DEFAULTSORT value of "Abd Dhiyab al-Ajili" on the main page of Abd Dhiyab al-Ajili. On 22 May Yobot changed the pipe to a colon. On 25 May Listasbot copied that value and inserted it as the listas parameter. I have put in the living parameter and now the article should not appear in any category that would indicate an administrative problem in the article. In the categories where the article does appear it will appear in the correct place.

The first name that is in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter that I am certain concerns you, because it has your note on it, is Abdul Rahman. While I am not as certain as you are that Rahman is not an inherited surname in the European sense (Afghanis are most definitely not Arabs and their language is not related to Arabic), because of your note I would put the DEFAULTSORT of "Abdul Rahman" on the article and make the listas parameter on the WP Biog banner also "Abdul Rahman". (I would also put the WP Biog banner on top so that the blp banner is on top. I may put a talk banner on the page.) Poof! Abdul Rahman is not one of the pages that will hide the pages like Talk:Abigal Merwin and Talk:Abner Silver.

What is more, the ones that concern you are easier to do than many of the Europeans as all that is needed is to paste the page name into the values. Some European names are in bits and pieces.

Once everything is done, listasbot and the worker bees have made sure that all biography talk pages have a listas parameter, defaultbot has made sure that the listas and DEFAULTSORT values are equal and the dust has settled, I am going to push strongly for a concentrated manual scrutiny of every biography page and a hidden category for pages with questionable sort values. This would recruit members with experience and expertise in this area who would know that Arabs generally do not have inheritable surnames, East Asian names are already in "lastname, firstname" format but generally do not have a comma, and other bits of arcana. The hidden category would be for those pages that look wrong but are out of the individual editor's ken.

After all that are you willing to correct wrong values that you find rather than delete them? Could you be persuaded to assign correct values to the pages on your watchlist? As I noted before, someone is going to do it. The best way to insure that it is done correctly would be to do it yourself.

Thanks for the use of the hall.

JimCubb (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

Your edits here are assuming bad faith. Please assume good faith when editing with others on Wikipedia. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 03:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:AAGF. I never said any of the other participants in the discussion were exercising bad faith. On the contrary I said:

Claims of WP:BLP1E, in this particular case, give the very unfortunate appearance of an attempt to sanitize the historical record regarding an incident embarrassing to Americans. No doubt this was not the actual intent of the nominator, and those expressing a delete or merge. But it gives this unfortunate appearance nevertheless...

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those little words (like "not") get me every time. Must be time for bed. Sorry to bother. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 03:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

re: question...

Yep, that and I thought it sounded better than most any other name I could think of. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 10:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a bad feeling you were going there. I won't even dignify that with a response. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's a ridiculous question about the choice of my username undermining my credibility. Feel free to submit it to WP:UAA if you'd like. And in no way was my response to you uncivil. For that matter, I don't think your question to me was uncivil, but I'm not going to waste my time engaging you in a discussion about it, either. Finally, I'm not sure where you read that I was looking for admin coaching. It's probably too late for that. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I forgot that was even out there. Surprised you stumbled across it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Assistance -- Drilbot

Okay, here is what I have done.

• I found the offending pages and put links to them on the bot's talk page as is requested on that page. (It would have been easier had you provided the links.)
• I reset the DEFAULTSORT value to the PAGENAME so that a bot that is looking for pages that lack a DEFAULTSORT value will skip the page. (I also put the DEFAULSORT above the category tags so that it will affect them even though it is not necessary in these instances.)
• I copied the DEFAULTSORT value to the listas parameter so that a bot that is looking for pages that lack a listas parameter will skip the page. I also rearranged the banners on the pages when it was necessary. (Talk banner, if present, goes on top. The blp notice goes as close to the top as possible.)

These are all things that you could have done.

I believe that an appeal to Admins is appropriate and that you should make it. However, please provide valid links.

By the way, there is a bigger problem with the bot. It is putting the DEFAULTSORT value under the category tags rather than above them.

JimCubb (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Explaining Further

As I noted above, much of what I did in regards to Drilbot were thing I feel you should have done. Furthermore, as you have not protected the relevant pages on your watchlist from bots that add DEFAULTSORT / listas parameters to page that lack either by putting those values on those pages, I believe that the description is accurate.

It would take you less than half the time it would take me because I would want to read parts of the articles and you do not have to read them. I have asked User:Afghana to look at the pages in the Guantanamo Detainees Category and protect them for you. I believe she is somewhat familiar with the contents of the articles and she has the expertise to do things correctly and have the results accepted by you even if the results do not always conform to your idea of what is correct. (See Abdul Karim (Guantanamo detainee 520).)

JimCubb (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Latvia–Luxembourg relations

There appear to be plenty of news articles for Latvia–Luxembourg relations, do you have time to help integrate them into the article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at DrilBot's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have a few questions. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Iqinn (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Meatgrinder

Sorry about that. It was an unfortunate choice of words. :/ TNXMan 16:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at DrilBot's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Could you please explain further... (aka Toucan link removal)

Hi there. I'm responding to your message on my talk page of 23 May. I'm sorry for getting back to you so late. I've left a comment on Talk:Toucan regarding the link that I removed from the article. Cheers, ... discospinster _talk 17:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Same

Abu Obeida training camp and Abu Abaida Training Camp Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

good catch. Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File:File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Geo Swan (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: The Patrick M. McCarthy article.

I have replied to your questions at my talk page. CIreland (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Abdul Razaq

Well, I don't really remember but I think I did it because it seemed more logical that people get put into different beginning letters instead of everyone being categorized under "Abdul". I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Ordering_names_in_a_category about Arabic names. Anyway, I did not rely on a bot. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sloop-of-war

I've just noticed some comments which you made a couple of months ago in the talk.page of the article on sloops, and as you made a couple of incorrect statements, I trust you won't mind if I put you right. The article is actually correct in mentioning that ship-sloops (and other sloops) were not Post-Captains commands. The definition of the naval sloop was that it was NOT commanded by a Post-Captain. A Post-Captain was only appointed to command a Post-ship (i.e. a Rated ships). I'm afraid you are misinformed.

You are also incorrect in your other assertion that ship-sloops were flush-decked; the majority of ship-sloops in the Royal Navy were built with a quarter-deck and forecastle, the most numerous designs in the Royal Navy during the 1793-1815 period being the Cormorant class (31 vessels built to this design) and the Merlin class (16 vessels built to this design). There were of course a certain number of ship-sloops which were flush-decked, but these were mainly purchased ships or prizes taken from other navies and added to the RN. Most brig-sloops, on the other hand, were flush-decked. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Abdul Basit (terrorist suspect)

 Done. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply on Drv

WRT your note, I too considered whether a deletion review was in order. I would however have tried to conduct a civil dialogue with the closing admin first. Per AAGF I would always do my best to strictly follow the guidelines, and make sure my questions of the closing admin were respectful of their being a volunteer, trying to do their best. I am sorry to inform you that you and Stifle are mistaken if you think this is always useful. In my experience some administrators can't be bothered to make any effort to respond to question. Many other administrators give pro forma replies that are basically just a big Foxtrot Oscar. Geo Swan (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan. I don't think this is always useful as I've see the poor response you refer to from both those with and without the admin bit....people who know better. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Question... Kingboyk

FYI: I've left a reply which comments what is happening at User_talk:Kingboyk#question.... "Quite a paradox, if you think about it" --CyclePat (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/review/Gregory McMillion

Consider it absent-mindedness. :) I've userfied per your request, and have added the {{NOINDEX}} tag to it. Please do not remove this tag, as it prevents the content from being spidered by Google. I assume you wish to assess the article compared to the AfD and determine what can be done: if you decide nothing can be done, please ping me and let me know so that I can return the article to its deleted state at its old location. Alternatively, if you feel the AfD was lacking from your input because of the lack of notification, please feel free to go straight to DRV, simply notifying me on my talkpage - I shan't take it personally, since I think it would be a sign that you were unable to influence consensus due to a lack of notification, and that it is that aspect of process you are challenging rather than the close itself. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Basij (Afghan student organization)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Basij (Afghan student organization), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This article is based on a misunderstanding. Although an Afghanistan citizen, Tukhi was a resident of Iran, and a member of the Iranian Basij.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  --Lambiam 09:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sort Key

I think I understand your question! In wiki, it is the common practice (as it is is many places, like the phone book) to sort people by last name then first. So, President Barack Obama would be categorised as Obama, Barack. That is why I did that in the article you mentioned. BUT I know some cultures (China is one, I think) put the last name first then the first name. So, if Afghanistan is one of them, please change it. But the bottom line is, biographical articles are sorted by last name, not first. Postcard Cathy (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I sorted it that way. AFAIK, a bot doesn't sort names; if it needs to be changed, it needs to be done manually. Do what you think is best. Since you know more about this than I do, if a change is needed, I think you should do it yourself to make sure it is done correctly and leave an edit summary explaining so no one changes it in the future - following the general wiki rule of sorting by surnames.Postcard Cathy (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the {{DEFAULTSORT}} value for Ezatullah Zawab, with a note explaining the change, and put the same value as the |listas= parameter on the talk page. All should be well.

JimCubb (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Norwitz after January.

With Norwitz it appears that he spoke at the UN this year and actually it was on the 5th Febuary at the U.N. High-Level Symposium on Water Security so *after* January and he was also awarded the Superior Civilian Service Medal (which we don't have much information on but I'll start that article and it is 3rd in rank just behind the Meritorious Civilian Service Award. That means that he was really very much a public figure known to many to get a UN invite but certainly now he is notable though more due to events in 2009 and so after the date on your initial article. You should restart it. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Wikireader41's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikireader41 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Wikireader41's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikireader41 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnie

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I hereby award Geo Swan this barnstar in his trenchant defense of free speech and opposition to arbitrary political actions aimed at curtailing the free flow of information. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bad News

I was prepared for that little eventuality. I think there's a massive Witch Hunt on this site against Home and Away and it's articles and it's been an ongoing battle for a long time now.

A lot of people do their level best on articles but STILL it's not enough.

The Articles'll probably be shaved, reconstructed and then torn down again. Rinse, lather, repeat Conquistador2k6 5 July 2009 21:01 (UTC)

File:Yasser Hamdi in Afghanistan.jpg

Just to let you know the copyright of the above image is the Associated Press [6]. Polly (Parrot) 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Home and Away character list

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Talk:List of Home and Away characters.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Matthewedwards's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at User:Matthewedwards.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--VS ^talk 02:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Polar Foundation

Romanian Wikipedia can be a little strange, so I'm sorry that happened to you. I'm assuming they won't give you any trouble over pages in your own userspace, though. If you'd like, I can come fix your translation once you do it again. By the way, what do you think of my suggestion to move the English page to Romanian Antarctic Foundation or some such? Is there a particular reason we should have the title in Romanian? Because if not, WP:UE would seem to apply. Best, Biruitorul ^Talk 15:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I had read WP:UE before. It was surprisingly interested. I am happy to defer to your knowledge of Romanian in general, and I specifically am on board for your suggestion WRT this foundation. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD notification

You asked if there was a reason why I didn't notify the article's originator (that is, you) when I nominated it for deletion. The short answer is: no, there was no reason, at least not one that I thought about. As far as I'm aware, there's no requirement to leave personal notifications about an AFD, and when I make an AFD nomination, all I do is go through the three steps listed at WP:AFD. If there was a fourth step listed, "leave this template on the Talk page of the article's originator," I would probably follow it, but as it is I don't think about it. I suppose I assume that anyone interested in keeping the article should have it on their Watchlist and should therefore see the AFD nom at the article (and in this case it was discussed on the Talk page for a couple days beforehand). But I didn't mean any harm in failing to notify you, and I apologize if any harm was incurred. Propaniac (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Sheberghan mass graves, 2004, 2006, 2007.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Sheberghan mass graves, 2004, 2006, 2007.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Zefnoon Safai, Legham Province, Afghanistan.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Zefnoon Safai, Legham Province, Afghanistan.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 02:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Moharam Khan Nasiri, Legham Province, Afghanistan.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Moharam Khan Nasiri, Legham Province, Afghanistan.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 03:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Above Images

The pdf source you list is the Naval Postgraduate School isn't that part of the US Federal Government? Polly (Parrot) 03:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lake Iroquois Shoreline

I proposed the merger in May 2008. After one year there was no discussion so I performed the merge.

The shoreline is a part of the geology of Lake Iroquois. Therefore it makes sense to talk about it on the Glacial Lake Iroquois article. The remnant shoreline is only visible in the vicinity of Toronto which is only a small part of the total shoreline of the ancient lake. IMO it isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The ancient shoreline is observable at various places, including near Fort Drum, on the New York shore at the other end of the lake. I got the original image used for Lake Iroquois from a web-site from the Army base at Fort Drum that discussed the Lake Iroquois shoreline. Geo Swan (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

None of that information was on either page. Please add it to the current page. If enough evidence surfaces to make the shoreline significant in respects other than its glacial origins (has it factored into human history?) than maybe the article might deserve to be reinstated. However, to date, nothing like that has appeared. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Chukchi Cap

I've added links to the Chukchi Cap today.--86.25.15.141 (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your assistance please...

Hi,

No the deleted image (File:Asadullah Khalid asad.jpg) is not the same as the images you mentioned, it was a low resolution, very tightly cropped (top of head missing) image of him facing the camera and aparently speaking into a microphone. My guess would be it's a screenshot from a TV broadcast or simmilar. --Sherool (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Debating merging Libyan training camp and LIFG training camp, going to look for more information tonight after work. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have wondered whether "The Libyan camp" might refer to Khalden, because its long term director was a Libyan. Geo Swan (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

You've been fingered at WP:ANI. Crafty (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Craftyminion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shona Holmes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Sean Whitton / 13:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Shona Holmes

Shona Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person doesn't deserve to have her own page. She isn't notably in any way and should either be deleted or merged into the Health care reform in the United States. I feel we should just delete this article Fire 55 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge with Health care reform in the United States. Don't think it deserves its own article but should be mentioned. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 11:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- Here is a reference I found today, to an article about Palmira Holmes, a fellow resident of the town were Shona Holmes lived, who has been inundated with calls from other Canadians outraged over Shona's apparent betrayal of Canada. A wikipedia article about Palmira Holmes would be a BLP1E. But Shona Holmes has multiple claims to notability, beyond her appearance in the ad: (1) there is the discussion over the credibility of her claim; (2) there is the strength of the feeling of betrayal from ordinary Canadians; (3) there are the comments in reaction from senior Canadian political leaders; (4) there is the Democrats Abroad counter-reaction. Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Carmela Fragomeni (2009-07-23). "You have the wrong S. Holmes". Hamilton Spectator. Retrieved 2009-07-25. Palmira Holmes has been inundated with phone calls from people trying to express their fury over Shona Holmes' decision to become the face of an aggressive American TV ad that slams Canadian-style health care.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- If, for the sake of argument, there was a strong argument for merging this article into another article, why would we merge it into Health care reform in the United States, as opposed to:

• Canadian health care system -- Holmes is, after all, a Canadian...
• Canadian and American health care compared -- her youtube video is, after all, part of a comparison of the two systems...

It seems to me that when there are multiple potential targets for a merge and redirection that is a very strong counter-argument to merging, it is a very strong argument that the topic of the article is of sufficient notability that it should remain a stand-alone article, and should not be merged. Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Rememeber someone isn't notable because shes in the news as this link explans. The only reason why see is getting this coverage is because of the health care reform in the US and therefore either deserves to be deleted or linked to their. She is a part of the debate on health card reform and that's where the info belongs.--Fire 55 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Because what she's "notable" for is an advertisement which aired in the United States pertaining to a debate about American health care reform. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep -- for the reasons I offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - As per WP:BIO1E Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable and the ad she was in has more to do with Patients United Now's efforts to block/direct U.S. health care reform than her specifically. --Ctbwiki (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Certainly worth mentioning somewhere, but essentially a WP:BLP1E. The debate she's a part of is notable, but that doesn't mean that she is — which is proven by the fact that this article is almost entirely about the advertisement she filmed, and contains almost no biographical information whatsoever. Perhaps an article about the advertising campaign itself might be in order — but absent other proof of notability, we don't particularly need an article about her. Merge to an appropriate target or delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, you refer to just a single debate. But surely there are multiple debates?
• Comment May I remind everyone that the wikipedia is not solely an American project? There is a separate, different debate triggered by Holmes claims up here in Canada. Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Her

• Keep -- What makes wikipedia useful is that when, in a debate with some fox news viewers, this woman I've never heard of before is mentioned, I can get a quick summary of the facts from a source that I can trust. Keep, keep, keep. --69.134.163.9 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment' The ip users comment is very fishy since not only was it the persons first edit, but only seconds after Geo Swans. Second if you are getting facts from wikipedia and you trust it you need to really look at wikipedia again because no university will accept facts from wikipedia. Nevertheless the fact that you are in the news DOES NOT mean you get an article. Which you can't seem to get Geo Swan. Please read this again WP:BLP1E. Holmes is only getting coverage because of the fact there is a health care reform in US. --Fire 55 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet master? In my five years of contributing to the wikipedia I have faced three or four irresponsible and unsubstantiated accusations that I am a sockpuppet or sockpuppet master. But I declare this is the the one with slimmest justification. Geo Swan (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the fact that the comment by the person is just stupid. I said it was fishy I didn't accuse you. First, it's really fishy that a persons first edit is on a deletion debate. Which more ip user don't even do let alone the first edit they make. Either way this page is going to get deleted because the people that know wikipedia guidelines agree with me.--Fire 55 (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Have you ever heard of reverse DNS? In the interests of your credibility you might consider using it before you accuse anyone else of sockpuppetry. Geo Swan (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you heard of proxy servers. I bet you have. I'll come back with a message that says I'm from Japan then from one in France.--Fire 55 (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• (1) Please don't call other contributors stupid. Doing so never helps cultivates reasoned civil discussion. 2 You called the IP post "fishy" because it came "seconds" after mine. It came eight minutes after mine. That is 480 seconds. Geo Swan (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I never called anyone stupid. You purposely are putting words in my mouth (this is the second time). I said the comment was stupid and I have every right to say that a comment someone made is stupid.--Fire 55 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nominator claims: "Holmes is only getting coverage because of the fact there is a health care reform in US." But, if that were true, why is it the following articles which discuss her precedent setting court case don't mention the US health care debate?
  • Tanya Talaga (2007-09-06). "Patients suing province over wait times: Man, woman who couldn't get quick treatment travelled to U.S. to get brain tumours removed". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2009-07-27.
  • Sam Solomon (2007-09-30). "New lawsuit threatens Ontario private care ban: "Ontario Chaoulli" case seeks to catalyze healthcare reform". Vol. 4, no. 16. National Review of Medicine. Retrieved 2009-07-27.
  • "Auditor says Ontario should post wait times for every surgeon". CBC News. 2008-10-08. Retrieved 2009-07-27.
  • Kevin Gaudet (2007-12-01). "Patients Sue for Private Health Insurance in Ontario". Canadian Free Press. Retrieved 2009-07-27.

TY Geo Swan (next time sign your posts) you still don't get it. YOU DON'T get an article if you are in the news. These stories are middle in the newspaper articles not the front page stuff she's getting because of her ad. If see is so important why did you create the article years after these stories. BECAUSE OF HER AD.--Fire 55 (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fire 55, here on the wikipedia we are supposed to reach decisions through cool, meaningful, collegial, civil discussion. This means that those who comply with the wikipedia's civility policies do their best to actually read what the other person wrote. They do their best to confine their comments to editorial matters. I read what you wrote, blp1e, blp1e, blp1e. Could you please show me the courtesy of trying to actually read what I wrote before you respond? The four references I cited above date to 2007 and 2008 -- over a year before she appeared in the US ad. As I pointed out above those references were to her lawsuit against the government of Ontario. I suggest this is a separate event from the US ad, by any reasonable measure. Geo Swan (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Since you still don't get it I'll quote the page "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."--Fire 55 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• She is not notable; the events are: WP:BLP1E. Either merge to an appropriate article or delete. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Obvious BLP1E. Besides, the article doesn't even make any effort to assert her (nonexistent) notability. 195.14.197.53 (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename. The case is now sufficiently notable that the public has a right to a balanced account. That being said, this is only a small part of this woman's life and an article under her name would be problematic for all the reasons mentioned above. I suggest renaming the article something like "The Holmes-Advertisement Controversy". (Perhaps someone can find a better title, ideally one that doesn't use her name, though the fact that Holmes is not this woman's professional name may mitigate that problem.) Bucketsofg 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename, per Buck's reasoning. If she has a nasty divorce, it doesn't belong in here...make the article more clearly about the advertisement and her medical context. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep-or-Rename: She appears on Fox TV, Mayo has edited her Patient Story, she's been mentioned in the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun, the Canadian Press, the Halifax Chronicle Herald, Bloomberg, the Calgary Herald, the Ottawa Citizen, Fox Business, The Guardian (.co.uk). It might be "one event" but the clear response to "one event" is rename, not delete. - BalthCat (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note to potential closing administrator -- since those who voiced a delete opinion, based on BLP1E, mainly did so before the article was expanded, and generally haven't returned here, to meaningfully address the counter-arguments, I'd like to request their opinions be discounted, because this is supposed to be a discussion -- not a vote. These {{afd}} are supposed to be discussions where there is a meaningful exchange of views. I am going to suggest this article be relisted, to get the opinions of individuals who have read the article in its current state. Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have seen the changes and as can only be expected it is still only about the event not her. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact the article doesn't even mention where she was born, her birthdate, or even her age. Even if you google them you get nothing. No one knows or cares because she's not notable.--Fire 55 (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to somewhere appropriate. This woman is a pawn in the healthcare debate, she is not personally notable. Sueing over medical treatment does not make someone worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Fences&Windows 02:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Guantanamo Bay attorneys

Was wondering if you were aware there is a CfD for this. Guessing you may have created the original (now changed) category, as you are the only talk page contributor.John Z (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated Link on Bill Roggio Page

Hi- It seems that the third link on the "Bill Roggio" article is no longer valid. The following is a link that leads to the article referenced ("W's Biggest Hit"): http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=457549

I'm rather new to the editing side of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure, etiquette-wise, if this is something that I should request you to edit, or if you're fine with me making the edit. Please just let me know.

Best,

Koschei D (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bill Roggio

Glad I could help! Thanks for filling me in on the update.

Best, Koschei D (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Padsha Wazir (disambiguation)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Padsha Wazir (disambiguation). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Padsha Wazir (disambiguation). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD

I'm nominating Shona Holmes for deletion.--Fire 55 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI for article Jeffrey_D._Gordon

I thought you might like to know that I reported this article on the ANI board because of the removal of your added edits to this article and my attempts to restore it. Although I reviewed the content and it appears to be properly sourced and not in violation of WP:BLP, there are two editors who apparently disagree and insist on censorship of the material while also refraining from discussing the matter including specific objections on the article's talk page. Your comments would probably be appropriate at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jeffrey_D._Gordon and would be welcomed by me. Cheers!   bsmithme  05:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bashir Ahmed Maktal

The article Bashir Ahmed Maktal has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. IQinn (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Philosopher's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Articles for deletion nomination of Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Karabak front, 2001)

I have nominated Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Karabak front, 2001), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Karabak front, 2001). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Abdullah Abu Masood camp

I have nominated Abdullah Abu Masood camp, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Kabul front, 2001)

I have nominated Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Kabul front, 2001), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Kabul front, 2001). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Abdul Basit (terrorist suspect)

You are right, I forgot to inform you of that deletion request. Didn't think there would be a real Wikipedian behind an article like that. I'm sorry. RobbertS 6:58 2009 August 17

my reply. Geo Swan (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you fully that I should have given you the opportunity to give your opinion about the page. There is a reason I had nominated it for deletion though, and I think you don't really get that point.

My point is this: "Abdul Basit" is a name like the English "John Smith". It's a very common name in Arabic culture. You aren't making a Wikipedia page about every reference to a John Smith on the internet, you know? Furthermore, "Abdul Basit" is a very well known celebrity to the Arabic people, as it's one of the best reciters of the holy Quran of our time. That being said, it wouldn't surprise anyone that many Arabic people name their sons after this guy. Also, "Abdul" is one of the 99 names of "Allah" (Names of God in the Qur'an), and many people name their children after one of those names.

Hope this clears things up. I hope you're not re-entering that page to Wikipedia, because to me, it's near the edge of racism (don't get me wrong, I'm not an Arab). ::RobbertS 15:23, 2009 August 17

Let me say first I have realized that Arabic names are tricky, and, without representing myself as any kind of expert, I have tried to tell others when I think they are mishandling them. I'd be happy to learn more from you of further wrinkles.

WRT to "John Smith" -- I think homonyms, notable individuals with names shared with others, are less common in European languages than in Arabic. But we do get them. And when we do we have a disambiguation page, and the individual "John Smith" articles are modified by a disambiguating suffix. So we do start to cover every "John Smith" who is worth covering.

I have no intention of adding racist material. I don't see however, how either the version you nominated, or the version at User:Geo Swan/review/Abdul Basit (terrorist suspect) is racist, or near racist. And I would very much appreciate hearing your reasoning.

In general, when thinking about how to handle material on controversial topics, I try to think about how I would like to see the wikipedia handle the topic of legal, large-scale slavery, if slavery was still being practiced in western industrial nations. Back when slavery was legal and accepted it is my impression that it was the abolitionists -- those whose views is most close to the modern attitude on the equality of all individuals, who were regarded as the kooks. I'd like to think that the wikipedia could rise to the occasion. The mainstream view would have to be neutrally represented. And the modern view, that all humans have the same innate abilities and rights, would also have to be fairly and neutrally represented, without edging into advocacy.

Was Abdul Basit unfairly profiled, and unfairly suspected, on flimsy evidence? We don't know. Whatever evidence existed about him remains secret. Covering that he existed, was suspected, was reported to have been held taken into secret custody doesn't need to imply that the allegations have been confirmed. If you think the current wording implies that it is confirmed that he played a role in terrorism, or that it comes near to implying this, do you think it is possible to draft wording that doesn't imply confirmation?

On some other issues some of my correspondents think that it is best to not cover material when they think it contains allegations that they don't (personally) consider credible. I think that is a mistake. WP:VER says "verifiabiliy, not truth". I think we have two choices when there is a topic that interests us, but the references available to us present conclusions at odds with our own conclusions. I think we can hold our nose, and fairly and faithfully present contributions that fairly and neutrally presents what the WP:RS say, even if we disagree with it. Or, we can choose to hold off on covering that topic. We can leave it, and possibly let someone else work on it. Or we can leave it, and wait, and maybe additional WP:RS will be published we won't have to hold our nose to present.

I don't think there is any topic, no matter how controversial, that can't be represented in a neutral fashion, with enough effort.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for using the time template, was looking for a quick way to type the UTC time without losing the signature. Thanks for that one.

I still think you're missing the point. My point is you're gathering news topics on an Abdul Basit. But there's no way of knowing that the Abdul Basit named in topic #1 on website X is the same as in topic #2 on website Y, because there are many Arabic people carrying that name. Of course, if you do have evidence that all of the Abdul Basits you had gathered are one and the same person, I'm not complaining at all. Hey, freedom of speech! Write what you want!

Let me put it in an other way. It's nonsense to create a topic "Peter" and citing many sources of a "Peter" who had been involved in different crimes, with no evidence at all that those Peters are one person. The result of that page would be that neutral knowledge database Wikipedia says that everybody called Peter is bad.

Since it regards terrorism and not petty crimes, I found the page to be near the edge of racism. I didn't mean to say I'm insulted or anything! Not at all! I'm just trying to say the page loses its neutrality, in my opinion, when you haven't got evidence that those Abdul Basits are one and the same person. Like Wikipedia says Peter is a bad guy cause you found a few Peters on the net that committed a crime. Catching my drift?

Hope this settles the case, 'cause it's not like I'll loose a nights sleep if you really want to keep that article. :)

I'm also sorry if the message hadn't gotten across clearly enough on my first try. I'm Dutch, it's not easy to make your point in a different language.

With kind regards, RobbertS 00:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A quick note just to clear up any misunderstanding, "Abdul" is not one of the names of Allah, it is the combination of "abd" (servant) with "al" (the). However, "Basit" is one of the 99 names (as is every other name that follows "Abdul", Abdulrahman, Abdulkareem, Abdul Sayyaf, etc).

People name their children "Abdul (servant of)" + "[insert one of 99 names]". That way, their child is "Servant of the Just One", or "Servant of the Charitable One", or in this case, "Servant of the One Who Lays Things Out". Just for future reference! Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert either. I was told Abdul was one of the names of Allah by an Arabic man, but I guess I didn't get that right. The guy doesn't speak my native language that good. Anyway: thank you for clearing that up! :) RobbertS 18:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alan Kay (judge)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Alan Kay (judge), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandor Vadas. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Al Qaida guest house, Kabul

I have nominated Al Qaida guest house, Kabul, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qaida guest house, Kabul. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Al Qaida safe house, Karachi

I have nominated Al Qaida safe house, Karachi, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qaida safe house, Karachi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Al Fand training camp

I have nominated Al Fand training camp, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Al Aqua military training camp

I have nominated Al Aqua military training camp, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Aqua military training camp. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Suspect guest house, Jalalabad

I have nominated Suspect guest house, Jalalabad, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspect guest house, Jalalabad. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Asil training camp

I have nominated Asil training camp, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asil training camp. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: A request

Certainly: I'll bookmark any more I see and we can discuss them. The main flaw (and something to avoid in the future) is that they don't pass WP:N despite the references because the references don't go into any detail - they're not about the safe houses, they only briefly mention them in relation to other stuff, that sort of thing. Ironholds (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

replied. Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice of a reverted edit

I have reverted (rolled-back) your edit here in the assumption that you did not mean to take out all of Jennavecia's talk page when posting? If necessary please repost your comment without removing all of the other material.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Did I? That is unexpected. I had that edit window open for a couple of days. But when I opened it, I had clicked on the "add a new section" tab. Odd. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• That is odd. Glad I could be of assistance.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Abu Zubaydah's Picture

Hi Geoswan, thanks for all your posts on the Abu Zubaydah page. I think the picture you recently posted is actually from his capture when he was piled into the back of a pickup truck with the other captured detainees that night, not from his interrogation. As far as I know there are no pictures of Abu Zubaydah from his interrogation. ArthurThomas24 (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Ryan Bell

I have nominated Ryan Bell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Bell (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Eastmain (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I do appreciate a candid response. Perhaps now we can follow my suggestion about two days ago and drop this matter, since we're obviously not going to agree over editorial issues and I see no point in perusing user ones. Ironholds (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Suspect guest house, Konduz

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Suspect guest house, Konduz. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspect guest house, Konduz. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mike Moran

Hi Geo, In reply to your query - the article was first created on 10 November 2004 by IP 63.196.241.140, it was prodded on 27 September 2008 and deleted 5 days later. It was then moved to your userspace on 26 December 2008 and you requested deletion moments later. As far as I can see the only edit you made to it as Geo Swan in its entire history was to request the delete. Hope this helps, best, Nancy ^talk 12:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello alter-ego

Hey mate, just came across reference to a "Jawr" and a "al-Jabal" training camp in the 90s, both in AFG. Any ideas/sources so we can add these two? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi

I have nominated Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. UltraMagnus (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...

Could you please explain why you deleted File:Great Bear Lake a.png?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an image description page without an image. It looks like the image was deleted in 2005 by User:TheCoffee (back when image deletion was permanent) for not having a source, the description page was restored in late 2007, and I deleted it a week later when OrphanBot informed me that it had found a description page without an image. --Carnildo (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Zaid Muhamamd Sa'id Al Husayn

Zaid Muhamamd Sa'id Al Husayn needs to have his CSRT allegations added. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Geo Swan (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed_image_widely_published_in_September_2009_-a.jpg

I have tagged File:Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed_image_widely_published_in_September_2009_-a.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. feydey (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Yellowknife Airport Terminal.jpg

I noticed that you added Category:Yellowknife airport to that page. The actual file is hosted at Commons so adding a category has the effect of creating a page on Wikipedia. I've deleted the page but of course it still looks like it exists, File:Yellowknife Airport Terminal.jpg but it isn't and should not have categories. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Padsha Wazir (disambiguation)

See User:Geo Swan/Padsha Wazir (disambiguation) for the userfied page. JForget 19:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Category sorting

Just a reminder that the DEFAULTSORT magic word uses a colon, not a pipe; for instance {{DEFAULTSORT:Aberdeen}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Aberdeen}}. —Paul A (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

More Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Thinking of England's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ToE^T 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding this problem in the future...

Apologies once more for the confusion. In any case, I've made a suggestion on the RFD discussion which I think will avoid the sorts of the misunderstanding behind both the red link removal today and the creation of those redirects before. Let me know what you think. —mako๛ 04:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, thanks for reverting the relevant changes. I appreciate the help. —mako๛ 19:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mysteries

I noticed your "are detainees allowed to talk to one another?" question. I am sorry I can't remember the names but I have read of one detainee who was wearing orange overalls because he ha been in a disagreement with another detainee. Also one who had discussed certain aspects of his story with another detainee. So it would seem likely that some at least of the detainees were mixing, and certainly we know that was the case with the younger detainees. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Muhammad Jafar Jamal al-Kahtani

A tag has been placed on Muhammad Jafar Jamal al-Kahtani requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Frmatt (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Shona Holmes

I have nominated Shona Holmes, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shona Holmes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fire 55 (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Shona Holmes

First, let me say thank you for pointing me towards the podcast. I still don't think it warrants Shona having a whole article to herself but it certainly reinforces the need to have a section on her with relation to the healthcare debate, which I believe already exists.

However, could I suggest that you and Fire22 go to WP:TEA. I know this is his third time nominating the article for deletion in a very short space of time and that is something that should be discussed but anything other than civil discourse isn't going to make either of you look good! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You may have seen that I'm now sitting on the fence. I hadn't considered the impact of Holmes' case in Canada before, I assumed she'd be laughed out of court. Surely nobody takes her seriously? Anyway, my argument to delete was partly based on Fire22's inexpert copy-and-paste, and probably a generous side serving of IDONTLIKEIT, so I'm staying out of the debate now. Fences&Windows 16:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
Message added 06:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ mazca ^talk 06:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Iqinn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IQinn (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Iqinn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IQinn (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Iqinn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IQinn (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Iqinn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IQinn (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Shona Holmes

An unresolved lawsuit isn't "precedent-setting"; by definition, a precedent isn't set until a lawsuit is resolved, because the resolution is what the precedent is. And by the same token, a lawsuit isn't notable until it sets a precedent, and therefore isn't notable until it's resolved — which means that as things currently stand, she's still only notable for 1E. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Eleanor Roosevelt's water pitcher ELRO1639 exb.jpg

File:Eleanor Roosevelt's water pitcher ELRO1639 exb.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Eleanor Roosevelt's water pitcher ELRO1639 exb.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Eleanor Roosevelt's water pitcher ELRO1639 exb.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank You Geo for your support. I really apricciate it. Those are the words an administrator should speak. Anyway. I will follow your advice and try to do my best to have those pages restored. When looked at those, still seems to me like a bad dream. Years of work.. Anyway. Thank you again and best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerd 72 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at MilborneOne's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

It was my pleasure. I have Charles A. Morgan, III on my watchlist as well as User talk:CAMorgan3rd so that if the situation changes and/or the editor starts communicating I can help. -- Atama頭 21:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you note

Thank you my friend for your support. I do not really know how to go on with this. Sometimes i think I do not need to take care to much because I have other important thing I need to stay focused within. But than when you think at the time spent to upload the pictures, the information.. I feel that I should go on fighting. But I am not a great IT guy and you can imagine the sense of bizarre when you try to use the wiki forms of complain or whatever.. I sent a message today to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I am not sure if it will work but I will be more than happy if you guys out there, more experienced than me can help. You are more than welcomed.

Best regards Gerd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerd 72 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Abu Zubaydah Picture Captions

Hi Geo Swan, I believe your captions for two of the pictures on the Abu Zubaydah wiki page are incorrect. Your picture of the safehouse claims Abu Zubaydah was captured there with "half a dozen individuals who would later face charges before Guantanamo Military Commissions." I'm not sure where you determined it was half a dozen individuals, but if you compare the wikipedia article on the safehouse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_house_in_Faisalabad with the Military Commissions Website of charged detainees http://www.defenselink.mil/news/commissions.html you will see that only three men captured at the safehouse (besides Zubaydah) are currently being charged by military commission, not half a dozen.

Also, your picture of Abu Zubaydah himself was taken during his capture, not his interrogation. He was found in the back of a pickup truck after having being badly wounded during his capture. As you can tell from the picture he is lying in the back of a pickup truck and looks as if he is badly wounded.

I tried to change the caption on the safehouse picture, but you reverted it. If you'd like to make the changes yourself that'd be great, otherwise I was hoping to change them in the next couple of days when I plan to add some additional information that has come out recently.

Thanks so much for your work on the page thus far. You're obviously a very respected poster to wikipedia and I appreciate you taking the time to look after pages on here.

ArthurThomas24 (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

re: reply

Thanks for the reply, Geo Swan. I think you're right about the language for the picture of AZ when he is wounded. "after his capture" is an appropriate compromise.

In regards to the other picture, however, I still think three is the appropriate number. There is no evidence Noor Uthman Muhamed was captured with AZ, so I don't think it's appropriate to count him. Also, Abudl Zahir was charged in 2006 before the military commissions system was rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in Boumediene v. Bush. I think it is more appropriate to say AZ was captured "with three individuals who are currently being charged by US Military Commission." Since the former commissions system was unconstitutional any charges brought before them were also deemed unconstitutional and therefore shouldn't be referenced.

I look forward to your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

ArthurThomas24 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WRT Noor... "However, more is known about the prisoners who were transferred to Guantánamo. Four of the men seized with Zubaydah — Ghassan al-Sharbi and Jabran al-Qahtani (both Saudis), Sufyian Barhoumi (an Algerian) and Noor Uthman Muhammed (a Sudanese) — were put forward for trial by Military Commission in June this year, accused of various plots involving explosives, and, in Muhammed’s case, of being the deputy emir of the Khaldan training camp."

WRT Abdul Zahir -- Do you really think it that an association with AZ, and currently facing charges before a military commission is more important than an association with AZ and having once been charged before a military commission? As you have noted the official line of AZ's importance, and how important an association with him is, has evolved. I think the full story requires describing all the individuals who faced increased scrutiny, etc, due to a supposed association with him.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

On the pictures

Thank you for your message.

So, first. The Canon is the camera used by my PIO at NATO MAIL-T Tirana. I have taken the pictures personally when we were invited to attend the eveniment (the arrival of Iliria boat for example) As stated in a message to the admin I have been given many pictures by Albanian collegues (within the AAF). Life is much more easy going in here and I am fully aware of the differences with a higly civilized society in the west. That's why I can understand my gaps as well. For sure, not always the way you try to improve things is appropriate. Some of them are taken with my old Nokia 3230. My camera on use is the Olympus. There were some pictures taken by the Helicopter Regiment which were turned in BW. One of my colleges, a british guy working as an financial advisor shoot them. We were in a working visit. I touched them using a easy going programme I got from the net -Picasa 3. Why did I do that? Because Albania has a problem with tap water managing and the roof of the houses were full of tankers. So, it is not the best feeling.. just behind a Mi-8 or a B0-105 an army of water tankers hanging over the roofs. Some of them I was trying to improve the quality. Especially the ones scanned. Now. Part of those are some beautiful pictures in BW given to me by a former NAVY officer who has happy to see them on the wikipedia. They are old and you need to know that AAF is far away from having an digitalized archive, and what is worse is that I do not see any will to take any little step in that direction. Let's go to the point. Unfortunately the AAF has a very sad web page were you can find very limited information (and we are not talking about galleries). And to be honest, as a fomer Albanian officer but also as a citizen of this country I feel terrible. We have been trying to change smth talking to MoD responsible authorities, but it seems quite difficult. Many people who come in Albania for the first time (westerners mainly) make the simple mistake to copy/paste within the realities they come from. Nothing works within this country as somewhere else. Even now that the country is a NATO country. There are no NATO standards achieved and the AAF will have some real changes only by 2020. I fully understand that my attempt was merely an effort to replace the MoD in its (so difficult?) mission of having a proper well built web page. (Unconscious) So. It is late in here and I will try to read your e-mail carefully tomorrow. I hope I will be able to follow your advices :)

Thank you again for your help and please.. keep in touch because it looks that I am in real need for some help on the know how.

Best regards Gerd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerd 72 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

While I am afraid some of the images you uploaded won't actually turn out to comply with our policies I believe your uploads were made in good faith. I don't believe you were trying to subvert our policies.

Thanks for the further details about the images. I hope these details are enough to get some of the contributors who have concerns about your images to recognize that the images you uploaded include valuable images that do comply with our policies.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

List of fixed-wing aircraft without flaps

Hello Geo. I see that you visited List of fixed-wing aircraft without flaps and reverted an edit made by User:Ahunt. You appear to have described Ahunt's edit as vandalism. Your action has been criticized on the Talk page.

It appears to me that your action is in breach of WP:AGF and WP:Civility. Situations like this can lead to edit warring, and are generally of no benefit to Wikipedia. Therefore I ask that you return to the article and undo your reversion of good-faith edits. That will be in everybody's best interests. Thank you in anticipation. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chesley Sullenberger

To be honest my opinion changed during the course of that debate "I originally redirected the article but I'm now not so sure..." when I think it became clear the individual met the criteria for an independent article. I think the level of coverage specifically about the individual, overrides the WP:BLP1E concerns - the policy does say "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate". Guest9999 (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Operation Nanook 2007.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Operation Nanook 2007.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 02:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD

To me the article combined two articles: the role played by Jewish persons in Hollywood and theories that the Jews control Hollywood (which is what the article was created as). Normally articles like the first type would not mention the Jews control Hollywood arguments because they are fringe. One of the weaknesses of the article after it was revised was that it presented the fringe position as mainstream and "balanced" it with arguments that Jewish domination of Hollywood was beneficial. If someone wants to write either of these two articles they could be encyclopedic. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Could you please explain...

Hi Geo Swan! Before I go on with this post, I'd like to clear up a likely misunderstanding: my endorsement of the deletion was not based on my opinion of whether the article should have been deleted; it was instead based on why I thought the closing admin was right and why I believed that the consensus was clearly for deletion. These are two entirely different things, and please keep in mind that I did not participate in the AfD itself.

Now that we've got that clarified, I'll reply to your post:

1. What is inherent POV? Inherent POV can be either one, or both, of two things:

1. The article's title is itself biased (i.e. irrespective of what the article content is)
2. The article's subject is biased (i.e. no matter what you write on subject X, it can't be NPOV)

Both problems were raised during the AfD about this article, and were not addressed. Problem 1 can usually be fixed by a rename, but problem 2 cannot.

There is a big difference between a controversial subject and an inherently biased one. For example, "Russia–Georgia conflict" is a controversial subject. "Killings of Georgians by Russians" is an inherently biased subject (for a Wikipedia article). Any article must leave reasonable room to present both sides, and the latter has no such room.

Lastly about point #1, it appears that like many, you may be confusing NPOV with verifiability, both core policies. Not everything, even if 100% verifiable, is neutral. Neutrality deals more with structure and style of the prose, irrespective of the sources used. This is exactly the problem with most of the keep arguments, which said that "we have good sources now", while ignoring the neutrality problems.

2. I'm not sure why you are focusing so much on WP:COATRACK. Is it because I mentioned it in the endorsement? As I said above, this is how I saw many of the delete arguments, not what I think myself (will elaborate in the final paragraph). This was not addressed by the keep arguments. No, WP:COATRACK is not a policy, but most Wikipedians believe that it clearly explains a part of WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and other policies that other Wikipedians don't seem to understand. Its premise is simple: you can't have an article that focuses excessively on a certain aspect of a neutral subject matter. There is a policy on the matter—it's called WP:UNDUE. The coatrack essay is needed to explain WP:UNDUE to those who have a hard time understand it.

Please also note that a closing administrator is required to provide a closing summary only when the closure itself is problematic, e.g. if he decides to delete an article with no apparent consensus, or to keep an article which seems to have consensus to delete. However, when the admin does what the consensus clearly represents, to any 3rd party reading the AfD, no closing statement is required. You can also use the admin's user talk page to ask if you're interested in the reasoning, and this practice is actually very common.

Lastly, my personal opinion on the article: I believe that it seriously violates WP:NOT, aside from being a coatrack: it's basically a collection of loosely related topics under one vague title. Moreover, it strongly smells of racism: would you have an article called "Controversies related to prevalence of blacks in leadership roles in hip-hop culture?"... I know I wouldn't want such an article on Wikipedia.

If you have more questions and comments, please leave them on my talk page, and I will reply as soon as I can!

Cheers,
—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)