User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2008-October-to-December

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 diff1 diff2. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Kiz o r 13:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

-- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh hey, guess what was just oversighted? --Kiz o r 00:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article Nominated for Deletion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]