User talk:Geo Swan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:28, 5 November 2010

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

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

MfD nomination of User:Geo Swan/Qari Jabar

User:Geo Swan/Qari Jabar, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Qari Jabar and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Geo Swan/Qari Jabar during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 03:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Geo Swan/Talat Hamdani

User:Geo Swan/Talat Hamdani, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Talat Hamdani and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Geo Swan/Talat Hamdani during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you moved User:Geo Swan/Talat Hamdani to Talat Hamdani. Perhaps you had not read the MfD notice on the page, which says "please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress". (My emphasis.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pages you may want to delete

Thanks for your interest.

There is a comment you repeated in some of your recent comments on my work -- that certain subpages could not be easily and quickly turned into articles that would survive in article space. I have seen other contributors make similar comments. But WP:User pages doesn't say every sub page in user space has to be intended to be transformed into an article. I believe sub-pages that are scaffolding for articles can be completely compliant with WP:User pages -- and all our other policies.

article	comment
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/al Janki prison riot	We have an article on this event -- called Battle of Al Janki, os something like that. The existing article has some serious weaknesses -- it relies entirely on coalition accounts, and accounts from journalists friendly to the coalition. There are no coverage of what the surviving captives have to say. I believe that material, properly referenced, and written from a neutral point of view, belongs in that article. I anticipate choosing wording that everyone will agree is neutral will require an effort -- an effort I haven't made yet. I would welcome clarification as to why anyone would regard this subpage as problematic.
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles that aren't ready yet/Guantanamo documents/Terrorist-Related Locations and Facilities	This page of notes describes a real document. I don't yet have sufficient WP:RS to write much about this document in article space. However, I am keeping my eyes peeled for addition references, and, when they emerge, I will add the material I made notes of here. I would welcome clarification as to why anyone would regard this subpage as problematic.
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/ARB lists	I don't see how the material in this subpage is problematic.
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/additional notes/Brahim Yadel	I saved a perfectly civil and collegial discussion. A general premise was discussed -- what percentage of new articles are junk. My correspondent thought almost all new articles were junk. I was skeptical. I had never taken a systematic look at the incoming new article stream. I was surprised that, while the percentage of junk wasn't as high as my correspondent thought, it was a lot higher than what I anticipated. Given that I have paraphrased this experiment, in other discussions of the percentage of cruft, I don't see what is wrong with keeping this discussion on hand to consult. I renamed this User:Geo Swan/An experiment -- are 90 percent of new articles junk?
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/additional notes/Sharbat (Guantanamo detainee 1051)
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/additional notes
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abusive Correspondents/HanzoHattori
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abusive Correspondents
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/abusive presiding officer
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges	I transwikied the previous contents of this page. It now contains a list of terms used in the document. If those terms have article I think it is worth considering whether they should use the wikisource document this sub-page parallels, as a reference. I would welcome clarification as to why anyone would regard this subpage as problematic.
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/alleged Guantanamo recidivists	Alleged recidivism is a perfectly valid topic for article space I think scaffolding to support those articles is a perfectly valid use of userspace. I would welcome clarification as to why anyone would regard this subpage as problematic.
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Saudi captives who are known to be released, but otherwise undocumented;
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles that aren't ready yet/Guantanamo documents/Terrorist-Related Locations and Facilities	There is a real document, entitled "Terrorist-Related Locations and Facilities". I'd like to read it. I believe it would be interesting. It is classified, and hasn't been leaked. If more WP:RS describe this classified document, or if it is leaked or declassified and released, I will do my best to draft neutral, properly referenced coverage of it in article space. Meanwhile I would like to record the little bit that is currently known about the document, for if and when more is known about it. I would welcome clarification as to why anyone would regard this subpage as problematic.

I haven't looked at all your responses yet, but one at least makes me worried about your honesty and/or knowledge of BLP policies. You state about User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges: "I would welcome clarification as to why anyone would regard this subpage as problematic." At the time I mentioned it to you, it looked like this, and could easily have been deleted as a G10 negative unsourced BLP article. It did not contain a single source, and wass clearly negative and one-sided in tone. That you can't see why someone would regard this as problematic is very worrying. Your comment you posted at the current page, "It has been suggested that this page of notes does not comply with WP:User pages. I don't understand how it lapses from WP:User pages, and will ask the individual making this suggestion for a fuller explanation", while at the same time removing all previous contents from this page, is disingenious. In the future, I will not bother anymore with asking you about some pages, but will either delete the BLP violations, or nominate the other ones for MfD again. Fram (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a number of these pages are now up for MfD, you can find them in todays MfD log. Fram (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Geo Swan/gitmo/Omar Deghayes

User:Geo Swan/gitmo/Omar Deghayes, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/gitmo/Omar Deghayes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Geo Swan/gitmo/Omar Deghayes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kart Barwan guesthouse listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Talk:Kart Barwan guesthouse. Since you had some involvement with the Talk:Kart Barwan guesthouse redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). IQinn (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/attempts to delete GWOT articles I have started

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/attempts to delete GWOT articles I have started, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/attempts to delete GWOT articles I have started and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/attempts to delete GWOT articles I have started during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 negative unsourced BLPs, one copyright violation, and 5 MfDs

I have deleted User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Bagram captives/Mohibullah and User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Bounty programs/Rewards for justice as unsourced negative BLPs. I have deleted User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives as a clear copyright violation. I have nominated a further five pages from your user space for deletion at WP:MFD. Fram (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I request you email me the source of these three subpages.

Have you read Feist v. Rural? It is a SCOTUS ruling. Facts are copyrightable. Lists of facts are copyrightable -- in certain limited circumstance. They can be copyrightable, if, for instance, the individual or organization has inserted a creative spark in its compiling of the list.

The SCOTUS has rejected the sweat of the brow rationale for granting copyright. Other nations, like Australia, do honor the sweat of the brow rationale for granting copyright. But the wikipedia`s servers are in the USA, and US law applies. In general lists of facts are not copyrightable, for our purposes.

So, are you arguing that the Brookings Institute introduced the creative spark necessary for them to be granted copyright for their list? If so did you closely compare to see if I altered the formatting, or introduced comments of my own in User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives? My understanding of the Feist v. Rural SCOTUS ruling is that in those limited circumstances when a list compiler has introduced a creative spark in their compilation of the list only copies that exactly follow their formatting are protected by copyright.

Yes, I understand you want me to address your concerns. I am going to repeat that I believe I am entitled to the assumption of good faith. It seems to me that in your comment yesterday on your talk page you told me you were no longer going to extend to me the assumption of good faith. I am going to repeat that I therefore request you recuse yourself and confine yourself to using the ordinary channels open to all wikipedia contributors, and refrain from exercising administrator authority over your concerns with my contributions.

Further, I think you are being overly hasty, in general. XFD are time consuming to address. Some of your concerns have not been endorsed by the community. I request you pause, and wait out all the XFD you have already initiated. Geo Swan (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 ==2 negative unsourced BLPs, one copyright violation, and 5 MfDs==
 I have deleted [[User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Bagram captives/Mohibullah]] and [[User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Bounty programs/Rewards for justice]] as unsourced negative BLPs. I have deleted [[User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives]] as a clear copyright violation. I have nominated a further five pages from your user space for deletion at [[WP:MFD]]. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
+:I request you email me the source of these three subpages.
+:Have you read [[Feist v. Rural]]?  It is a SCOTUS ruling.  Facts are copyrightable.  Lists of facts are copyrightable -- in certain limited circumstance.  They can be copyrightable, if, for instance, the individual or organization has inserted a creative spark in its compiling of the list.
+:The SCOTUS has rejected the sweat of the brow rationale for granting copyright.  Other nations, like Australia, do honor the sweat of the brow rationale for granting copyright.  But the wikipedia`s servers are in the USA, and US law applies.  In general lists of facts are not copyrightable, for our purposes.
+:So, are you arguing that the Brookings Institute introduced the creative spark necessary for them to be granted copyright for their list?  If so did you closely compare to see if I altered the formatting, or introduced comments of my own in [[User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives]]?  My understanding of the [[Feist v. Rural]] SCOTUS ruling is that in those limited circumstances when a list compiler has introduced a creative spark in their compilation of the list only copies that exactly follow their formatting are protected by copyright.
+:Yes, I understand you want me to address your concerns.  I am going to repeat that I believe I am entitled to the assumption of good faith.  It seems to me that in your comment yesterday on your talk page you told me you were no longer going to extend to me the assumption of good faith.  I am going to repeat that I therefore request you recuse yourself and confine yourself to using the ordinary channels open to all wikipedia contributors, and refrain from exercising administrator authority over your concerns with my contributions.
+:Further, I think you are being overly hasty, in general.  XFD are time consuming to address.  Some of your concerns have not been endorsed by the community.  I request you pause, and wait out all the XFD you have already initiated.  [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan#top|talk]]) 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)