User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2009-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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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://wiki.riteme.site/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

The article's title is itself biased (i.e. irrespective of what the article content is)
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)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Craftyminion's talk page.
Message added 01:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Crafty (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Coffee

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

The Pentagon is not happy with you!

Just playing around with WikiScanner and thought you'd be amused to know this edit removing your information was performed on a computer inside the Pentagon :) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dunno

i can't remember why i deleted Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp/Archive. do you want me to restore it Herostratus (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mohammad Golab Mangal, Laghman Province, Afghanistan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 23:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alleged bomb-maker instructing recruits.jpg

{{Information |Description=Alleged bomb-maker instructing recruits. |Source=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/world/main3802917.shtml |Date=July 2002 |Location=Ab Kheil, Afghanistan |Author=unknown |Permission={{IEEPA sanctions}} |other_versions= }}{{Non-free use rationale |Article=Improvised explosive device |Description=Alleged bomb-maker instructing recruits. This image is from a video that was recovered from the ruins of the compound where the instruction took place, and leaked to [[CBS News|CBS]]. |Source=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/world/main3802917.shtml |Portion=single frame |Low_resolution=yes |Purpose=To illustrate what a "bomb-making factory" looks like. |Replaceability=no |other_information= }} \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Janet Allison

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Janet Allison. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments, the considerable efforts you put into this and your perseverance in writing follow-up replies. It made a difference and was greatly appreciated as moral support. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Wahab

Thank you buddy, for informing me about this. This was an honest mistake. I had worked previously on several disambig pages. Sorry for i messed this one up. I knew about both of them before, and I did not intend the links to result in this way. I;ll try to be careful and possible update the discussion pages too. Thanks again for informing. Btw, i like your efforts in raising awareness about guantanamo.--Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 03:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geo Swan/review/Janet Allison

Hi, Geo Swan.

While searching for sources for Janet Allison, I found this page in your userspace. It was on the first page of a google search for "Janet Allison sex offender". With apologies for editing your userspace, I have added the __NOINDEX__ magic word to the material in the hope that this will prevent it showing up.

As a general rule, where a BLP is at DRV, I would suggest that any userspace material concerning that BLP should have this magic word. Cheers—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Allision

Per you comments in the deletion review, I thought you might be interested in helping to reworkg the material into a more suitable form. As such, please see Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Janet Allison and the comments I've made on the talk page. Please feel free to contribute whatever you like. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Quba training camp

The article Quba training camp has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources by either name, with or without the word training. Sources in article are primary.

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. Abductive (reasoning) 06:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Abd Al Razzaq Abdallah Ibrahim Al Tamini and others

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Abd Al Razzaq Abdallah Ibrahim Al Tamini, Mahbub Rahman, Shamsullah, Abdul Qudus, Naqibullah. 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 the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd Al Razzaq Abdallah Ibrahim Al Tamini for Abd Al Razzaq Abdallah Ibrahim Al Tamini, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahbub Rahman for Mahbub Rahman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamsullah for Shamsullah, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Qudus for Abdul Qudus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naqibullah for Naqibullah. 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) 01:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Fiona McLaughlin

I have nominated Fiona McLaughlin, 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/Fiona McLaughlin. 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. Ash (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Orio Palmer

A tag has been placed on Orio Palmer 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. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Furkat Kasimovich Yusupov

I have nominated Furkat Kasimovich Yusupov, 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/Furkat Kasimovich Yusupov. 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. IQinn (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles

Hi there; with reference to your question on my talk page, worry not. Holly Bagnall is a fictional cat - the article claims that it is partly written by said cat - , and Ghassan Elias is a Lebanese child who is purported to be an as yet unpublished poet. Neither have any relationship at all to 9/11. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit preview

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Phil Carter, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. -- Brianhe (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elham Battayav

Could you merge the article you have created Elham Battayav into Ilkham Turdbyavich Batayev? The NYT's listed Elham Battayav as alternate name of Ilkham Turdbyavich Batayev. [1]. IQinn (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Some articles from your user space are showing up in the categories of the main space like this one. Is there a way to fix that? IQinn (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. They shouldn't show up. It is an oversight. I'll fix any you draw to my attention. Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Here are some:

[2] [3] [4] [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

(previously unsigned) IQinn (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

When searching Google i regularly get articles from your user space at the top of the list...

Discussion moved to a user space page... Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Library resource

I thought you might be interested to peruse User:Sherurcij/books; it's just an informal listing of books that "we", being the few who seem to constantly find ourselves in terrorist biographies, may find appealing. I'd like to list the "bad" books as well as the "good" ones so that we know where we can invest money in knowledge, not waste it in vain. If you have a couple books yourself to add to the list (or want to add an alternate review of a book where you violently disagree with my characterization), please feel free - I may import it over to Wikiproject:Terrorism in the future if it becomes a viable resource. Please do limit it only to books you have read cover-to-cover, not ones you have only cherrypicked through for information. Thanks! Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages with only two entries

Hello. Just to let you know that this dab, which you created, has been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig. This is in accordance with the guidelines at MOS:DAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries and I have created a hatnote to the woman whose article was deleted on Susan Manning's page. If you have any questions about this, please contact me. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Amir Yakoub al-Amir Mahmoud

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Amir Yakoub al-Amir Mahmoud. 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/Amir Yakoub al-Amir Mahmoud. 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) 01:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple wiki-ids at the same time

I commented about the Boleyn accounts at ANI but I forgot to acknowledge that of course you have lots of article-space edits too, so I hope you are not offended. I simply wanted to join the debate, and didn't mean to imply that you were a newbie. You are obviously highly experienced already. - Pointillist (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military Commissions Act

Thank you for creating a dab page Military Commissions Act to reflect the passing of a second Act. It is now the third most linked-to disambiguation page on Wikipedia[14]. Do you have access to any tools that could bulk change existing references into Military Commissions Act of 2006 before too many references to the 2009 Act start appearing? Certes (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems

Just thought you may be interested following your concerns about how Gerd72s image problems were handled, we now have a place to discuss multiple copyight violations from contributers - WP:CCI. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might interest you

Since you started this discussion, this one might interest you...Have a great weekend!--kelapstick (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping...--kelapstick (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're live, and I left a note for you on my talk page about the railway stuff.--kelapstick (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to update CSRT allegations missing from the transcripts

There are some articles where a part of the allegation has been replaced with " -- The general summary of the allegations that establish an association with terrorism were missing from the transcript. --" Like in this one. It is a bit confusing. Could you fix the link to the source in this article? IQinn (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you have added all the hundreds of refs could you please help me to fix this one? So we can solve this problem in these articles. IQinn (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fix them, as I come across articles that contain this passage.

If you see this passage you are seeing an article I worked on between March 2006 and September 2007. In January 2006 the DoD was forced, by court order, to publish information about the captives. On March 3 2006 they published the transcripts from the CSR Tribunals of those captives who attended their Tribunals. The DoD didn't publish the CSRT Summary of Evidence memos until September 2007. Or rather they did publish them earlier, in early 2005 -- but with the names redacted.

The allegations were read out loud at least once during each Tribunal. Most transcripts included the allegations, in the form they were read out, when the captive was invited to respond to each one in turn. Some transcripts only included some of the allegations -- only the ones the captive responded to, or was invited to respond to. Others were missing the allegation altogether. And some included paraphrases of the allegations, when the Personal Representative testified, to the effect, "when I met with the captive prior to this Tribunal, and asked him A, B, C, he responded X, Y, Z"

Now that the memos have been published the missing allegations can be plugged in. I know you know that, currently, the easiest place to find the missing allegations is from the NYTimes Guantanamo docket. If you find that the wording of the allegations as I transcribed from the transcripts differs significantly from the wording in the published memos please do not assume that it is due to typographical errors on my place. The transcripts document that there were significant lapses of clerical control at OARDEC. The transcript document that there were several Tribunals where the officers compared the wording of the summary memos the recorder had issued to them with those that the Personal Representative had discussed with the captive, and found they differed significantly. And there were many more transcripts where the captives told the Tribunal, "These allegations are new to me. I have never heard them before."

I wrote above that the Summary of Evidence memos were published twice -- once in 2005, with the names redacted, and again in 2007. Actually some were published a third time, when they were included in the dossier prepared for the captives who had habeas petitions filed on their behalf. I found instances where the different published versions differed in wording. The DoD does not seem to be aware that they published different versions.

The memos published in March 2005 had the captives' names redacted. But those images contained copious marginal notations, in pen. From about page forty of those memos, to just over halfway through this long pdf, all the memos had the captives' ISN manually transcribed onto the top right hand corner of the first page of the memo. One of the memos in that pdf differed about fifty percent from the version published in 2007.

I have been plugging in the actual wording of the missing allegations, when I work on an article that has missing allegations. Please feel free to plug in missing allegations yourself. But, if you do maintenance work on the allegations, please do not remove the information I added about the conflicting versions. I don't offer any speculation, in the articles, as to why the wording differs. When and if a WP:RS comments about the differing wording, then it could be appropriate to quote or paraphrase their explanation.

If you are asking me to drop everything else I am doing, and replace that passage everywhere it occurs, I am sorry, without further explanation as to why you consider this important, I am going to decline that request. The existing text is not inaccurate. Those allegations are missing from the transcript. As I wrote above, when I do other work on those articles I plug in the missing allegation(s). So, eventually, they will all be more fully fleshed out. But I do not consider it as high a priority as the other things I am working on. Geo Swan (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I know that it may be interesting to show differences in the published versions but i would think to leave it out for the moment until secondary sources have published about them. Sure we can fix it on the fly. Could we agree to stick with the NYTimes Guantanamo docket version as this looks like the most reliable to me? IQinn (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT the different versions...

If the DoD were to offer a general explanation as to why there were different versions, we should cover their explanation;
If a former insider, like Stephen Abraham, were to comment on the general phenomenon of different versions, we should cover that explanation;
If a well informed and respected commentator, like Andy Worthington, were to speculate on explanations for the general phenomenon of different versions, we should cover that explanation;
If a diligent and resourceful journalist, like Carol Rosenberg were to report that insiders who wanted to remain anonymous had leaked an explanation for this phenomenon to her, we should cover than explanation.

But I do not agree that means we should not cover the fact that there were different versions, without speculating on why there were different versions. A similar issue arose in the past. Someone, it might have been me, had contributed material to an article, that did not draw a conclusion. Another contributor challenged it, as an instance of WP:SYNTH -- original research by synthesis -- the use of multiple references to WP:RS, but then drawing a conclusion between what the multiple references documented, that was not in the references. Someone more experienced than I was then very helpfully explained to the challenger that this could not be an instance of original research by synthesis, when the contribution did not provide any synthesis, did not draw any conclusions. Looking for references, and citing them, they explained, was not "original research", it was the kind of basic research we are required to do, because we are required to have references for our contributions.

So, no, I do not agree that covering that there are multiple incompatible versions of these documents should wait until a WP:RS

You brought up the term "secondary sources" again. You have used this term before, and I have explained my interpretation of this term several times. By the definition usually used on the wikipedia, and the definition usually used in the real world, the OARDEC Summary of Evidence memos, and the OARDEC Decision memos, are secondary sources. I have pointed out to you that they are summaries. Their authors wrote them after reviewing, analyzing, collating, interpreting other documents. Doing so properly would be a task that required intelligence, judgment, and a familiarity with the subject. I suggested to you then, and I repeat now, that I believe these documents are good examples of secondary sources.

I do not believe you have ever responded to my points. Rather you have continued to state or imply that the OARDEC memos are not secondary sources.

WRT to primary sources -- the CSR Tribunal and ARB hearing transcripts are primary sources. Mohammed Al Qahtani's interrogation log, that documented, his 58 days of sleep-deprivation, sexual humilation, hallucinations, and the enemas, force-feeding, and intravenous that prevented from dropping dead during his 58 days of interrogation would be another example of a primary source. But you often write as if our policies prohibit the use of primary sources. They do not. They recommend that primary sources be used carefully. They say that primary sources should supplement secondary sources. They say that secondary sources should be used to establish notability. They do not say that secondary sources should not be used.

You write: "Could we agree to stick with the NYTimes Guantanamo docket version as this looks like the most reliable to me?"

The advantage the NYTimes version has over the original DoD version is that it is easier for contributors to access, when adding references, and it is easier for any of our readers to access, if they want to check the context, or verify, for themselves what the documents said, or check out what they suspect was an error on our part, or OARDEC's part.

As to whether it is the "most reliable" -- no, I certainly could not agree to that. The NYTimes Guantanamo docket has the text to each page twice. There is the visible image. The NYTimes also had a robot optically scan those images, and produce machine readable text from each page. Optical scanning is an imperfect process. It introduces routine inaccuracies. One can find the small letter "el" replaced with the digit "1", and vice versa. Smudges and dust generate spurious typographical errors. Other phenomenon generate typographical errors.

There is no sign in the NYTimes Guantanamo docket that they recognized that the published versions of these documents vary. For those memos where there are multiple versions, we don't know which version they used.

You might think that the NYTimes Guantanamo docket is more reliable because you came across links to the DoD documents that no longer work. But newspapers suddenly take steps that make their links not work. Several years ago, after I had already made hundreds of references to NYTimes articles, the NYTimes changed their policy on making articles available to online readers. They did so without warning. After the change, for approximately two years, their articles were only widely available online for a few weeks. After that few weeks the articles remained available only to subscribers. They could do it again. Or they could keep them online, and do an internal reorganization.

The DoD could do another internal reorganization. But I have uploaded all those documents to wikisource, or the commons. Even if the DoD decided they would no longer make them available they would still be available at the commons. And, provided no-one changes the existing refs to point to the NYTimes Guantanamo docket version, a robot could change all those links to point to the copy on wikisource, or the commons.

All, or almost all, of the references to the DoD version contain the page number within the pdf. This is, I believe, valuable information -- and it was a tremendous amount of work to put in. I would really appreciate it if your stopped removing the existing links, and replacing them with links to the NYTimes Guantanamo docket.

I have noticed that, recently at least, when you make a link to the NYTimes docket, you do so in a way that will cause all kinds of problems:

You do not populate the fields in a {{cite web}} template. You use the bare URL. It is always a mistake to use a bare URL in a reference, instead of populating it. Do you remember when I raised my concern with you over your excision of dead links? This is the flip side of that. If a site does an internal re-organization, a bare URL won't work anymore. And when you haven't supplement the URL with a title, a date, author, publisher, you can make it very difficult, or impossible, for another person to hunt down the new, current URL. Plus bare URLs are opaque looking, intimidating. The bare URLs to the NYTimes pages don't look intimidating to you, because you are now familiar with them, and can parse who it is about. But that is buried in there, and you are really doing a disservice to readers by not fleshing out the link.
You are using a single reference to the whole docket page for all the documents within the docket. You aren't using the separate and distinct URL to the first page of each particular document. That too is a disservice to readers.
You are replacing the unique, specific, and IMO meaningful refnames with a single refname you use on all the articles. Sorry, this too is a serious mistake. In this case it is a serious disservice to other contributors. It is a disservice to other contributors for several reasons:
1. References can be useful in multiple article. The best references may be re-used in hundreds of articles. When I first started working on these articles in 2006 I didn't understand this, and I used simple refnames like "CSRT". But references should be written using a robust and potentially unique refname, so that they are ready to be cut and pasted into other articles. When I first wrote articles that cited CSRT documents from two or more captives I had to give them longer, more specific names. So, from then on, I always used unique and specific refnames for the OARDEC documents. My refnames are specific about which of the dozen or so OARDEC document the ref cites, and they are specific about which captive it is, either by name, or more recently, I append the ISN.
2. I have my preferred naming style for refnames. I have my preferred layout style for {{cite}} templates too. You may have noticed I put just one field per line. I figure references are important, and they should stand out and be easy to find, easy to copy, easy to modify, inside the editor. Of course I regularly come across refnames that I think are badly chosen. I regularly come across {{cite}} templates laid out on a single line. I resist the temptation to change them. I recognize that making cosmetic changes to references, for stylistic or esthetic reasons, without modifying how they are rendered seriously erodes the value of the wikipedia's history mechanisms. The history mechanism aid us in figuring out how different versions of an article have changed. If you compare two versions, you can see at a glance that they are identical, or have had minimal changes. And the history mechanism works best if when the at a glance test suggests lots of changes there have, in fact, been lots of changes. However, when someone makes changes that don't change how the page is rendered they trick other contributors into thinking the article has undergone substantive change to its intellectual content, when it has not.

Finally, with regard to the NYTimes. I think you have been making verbatim copies of the sentences from the NYTimes docket pages, about how long the captive has been in Guantanamo -- without indicating that this is a direct quote. This is a mistake.

Is this plagiarism? I know there are some contributors would say copying a whole sentence, an important one, word for word, is plagiarism. Personally, I think it is borderline. I never do this myself, but I wouldn't report someone unless they copied at several sentences, word for word, without indicating it was a direct quote.

You could preface the quote with something like: "The NYTimes reports..." No one can call it plagiarism if you indicate it is a quote.

You could rewrite the sentence. According to the 1991 SCOTUS ruling in Feith v. Rural, in the USA, "facts" themselves are not copyrightable -- only how they are expressed. If you rewrite the same facts in a sufficiently different order, using synonyms, you might write a slightly weaker sentence, but it would be one that I do not think could be challenged on grounds of plagiarism.

IMO, rather than writing how long a captive has been in Guantanamo it would be better to simply cite when he arrived. That is simpler to maintain. It does not require periodic recalculation to remain meaningful. And the wording does not have to be altered if he is released, transferred or dies in custody. Arrival dates for all but a dozen or so captives are in the height and weight documents.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all (no offence) i now remember another editor described your long comment in the past as "walls of words". Really no offence but i just have to express my wish you would try to limit your posts to an acceptable length in the future. Sure i know that is not always easy. Here are some answers.
I do not think it is necessary nor desirable to start almost every part of the article with "The NYTimes reports...", "Carol Rosenberg reports...", "XYZ reports..." That may be necessary in some cases but it does not make an encyclopedic article. No offence but I think you overuse this method in these articles instead of writing comprehensive paragraphs that provide informative context for our readers.
It is the The New York Times that specially calculates and points out the lengths of the imprisonment for each prisoner. Why are they doing this? Because they think is is remarkable and notable. For a lot of the prisoner thats one of few information that have been made available by secondary sources. Not to include the little information that comes from highly reliable sources and that is specially marked as notable would be irresponsible. I do not think it is difficult to update this information i will do it and it is easy to do for every editor that work on or visit WP. But i must say you are right about the presentation of this fact in the article. It may be desirable to put this fact into a different sentence structure what is not always easy for such simple facts. But i will try my best in the future to improve this point.
For WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, yes i have encountered many instances in these articles and i think it is the best we sort them out on the articles talk pages for each individual article and instance.
For the "primary sources"... You know many other editors have called the OARDEC memos "primary sources". From all 700 talk page comments and numerous Afd's i would say that is the majority view to use them in a way that primary sources are use on WP. Looking back on all these discussions i would say there are few who call them "secondary sources". You do and that's perfectly fine. I respect your opinion but must say, i as so many other editors disagree with it. Let's try to shine some light on it.
So far i found only one argument in the discussion here and before that you claim would make these documents a secondary source. "That reviewing, analyzing, collating and interpreting of some documents by OARDEC and preparing the new OARDEC Summary of Evidence memos, and the OARDEC Decision memos would make them secondary sources.
That's wrong. Reviewing, analyzing, collating and interpreting of documents is a method that does not makes the result of it automatically a secondary source document. The fundamental point is who does the reviewing, analyzing, collating and interpreting and how the "who" is connected or involved in the event.
All these documents are primary sources because they are very close to the event. OARDEC is the United States military body responsible for organising the Tribunals (CSRT). For that reason alone we have to declare all documents that comes from OARDEC as primary source as OARDEC is responsible itself for organizing the tribunals.
Further OARDEC is a United States military body and Guantanamo is run by Joint Task Force Guantanamo a United States military body. This is another reason to see all these documents as primary source. I do not think that any document regarding the detention and interrogation in Guantanamo prepared by any branch of the United States military can be used as a secondary source in the BLP of the detainees as they are to close to the event.
To bring up another point. Regardless if you call it "secondary source" and i call it "primary sources" any kind of interpretation of these documents by an WP editor undesirable for the following reason. The surrounding context that is needed for an even basic interpretation of these documents is still not given or unclear. Just to mention a few points like the circumstances of interrogations phrased under harsh interrogation techniques to allegation of torture. Or for example the behavior of the detainee during the time in Guantanamo is a part of the tribunals. These are highly complicated issues that are still highly controversial and not well understood.
And how would you select witch part of the documents to display in the article? How could you make sure this selection would not be the interpretation of you as an WP editor? Most of the BLP's we are speaking of are relative unknown. How could you achieve we do not violate our own policies regarding the protection of relative unknown persons by just copy past the questionable allegations against him? I see a lot of problems coming up and i would suggest to rely more on secondary sources and to limit the inclusion of these primary sources.
For citing source: I think you did a great job by referencing all the documents to the primary source version on the www.dod.mil or related goverment servers and i think it was the right thing to do at the time where there were no other places to link to.
1. The problem is that many of them are broken and many of the other have frequently frozen up my browser. (Yes i have a fast computer and internet connection and it happened frequently in different browsers.) Because they are often large sets of documents in pdf form that do not only concern the information of the person covered in an individual article.
2. It is nearly impossible to verify information in these large documents. I know you added the page numbers but it gets easy to mess up and takes and very long time for each of the references. And sometimes you created 10-20 different ones in one article. I do not think that is manageable by other editors. The aim of an WP article should be to keep things manageable and maintainable.
3. I would always prefer a reference to a version provided by the secondary sources than by the primary sources. (Not everybody likes to have to rely on and go to an us military server for that when we have other choices)
4. I do not think commons can provide the well organized comprehensive overview of the documents like it is provided by The Guantanamo Docket. Sure it may be possible to upload all of them to commons. But the copies you have uploaded to commons so far are from the NYT's anyway. And i do not see commons can provide the same convenience form of viewing for them. As well it would be difficult to make sure that nothing gets mixed up. For the moment i prefer to go with the NYT's until there is more time and better features in commons.
5. I do not see the need to include {cite web} all the time that may be your way but i think that's not necessary to do for me for the moment. I also think your citation style provides to much detail that just confuses the reader instead of bringing him directly to the sources where he can get more information and verify the claims that have been made.
6. And you are wrong i do link to different documents in the set of documents like CSRT Transcrit / ARB 1 / ARB 2... and i have and will add text to the bare urls where i did not do it yet.
I think my references provide the reader with an clear and easy way to access the information they are looking for instead of clicking the wrong link, having their browser frozen up, waiting for a 5 MB page to load, searching around in a 200 page confusing redacted document or seeing the 404 page to often. Sure i will try to tweak the style of the reference link to make it even better.
To finish that up: An example from last week how confusing these references are. I could not match up the Summary of Evidence memo with the New York Times version. Here is the version i found in the article. The link to the provided source was 404 (i tried multiply times over a period of time). I left a message on the talk page and you came and the text to the NYT's version.. But you did use the old reference. that works now. Where i can not find the Summary of Evidence. There are some parts in it that could have been used to create the old version even i see that not very well matching up. But as you have changed the text in the article to the version that looks like the NYT's version. Don't you need to change the reference as well? You also did not explain you work and just dumping "rough work" on the talk page without explaining it. No, really it is confusing and i do see an urgent need to replace the large troublesome PDF references and broken links with references from The Guantanamo Docket.
I hope i covered most of your points. Cheers IQinn (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've numbered your paragraphs, to simplify responding to them. I wouldn't do that on an article talk page, or on someone else's talk page. But this is my talk page, so I feel authorized to do this.

Please do not edit my comments

I ask you to revert back and not to edit my comments. You could put it out of context. IQinn (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little WP:AGF please. I remember you have objected to my attempts to understand what you write by paraphrasing your comments, to check to see if what I think you meant was what you really meant. Since then I have not paraphrased you. I have directly quoted you. I am sorry to see you haven't noticed this.

In this particular instance the only change I made was to change your paragraphs into numbered paragraphs. Then, in my comments, I can refer to paragraph N, and avoid either quoting you or paraphrasing you.

I am entitled to more freedom on my talk page, as you are on yours. But there is absolutely no way I would edit the contents of someone's comments, even on my talk page, except complete removal of blatant vandalism or blatant personal attacks.

For paragraph numbering to work there can't be any blank lines between the paragraphs. Geo Swan (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not doubt your good faith. I very well can see the the good intention behind it. And i have just ask you to revert it back to the state i left it on your page. Because i do not like how it looks like now. So no big deal here. Just another more polite request from me to revert it back to the original version. Thank's IQinn (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop your edit war?

You are doing multiply reverts right now over a set of pages. In some of them you do this under a misleading edit summary that does not make clear you have reverted. Please stop edit warring and engage in discussion. IQinn (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the definition of an edit war, and he has wider consensus for his restorations than you have for your removals. If you want to remove text from a page, discuss it on the talk page, gain consensus, then remove text. Don't simply blank large sections of hundreds of biograhies because you personally consider it poorly worded. Fix it, or discuss it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He does not have wider consensus for that at all! That's another false statement of you. Another wrong point is that i remove text because they are "poorly worded". I have never done that! I have given clear edit summaries and additional information on the talk page when needed and engage in discussions. What Geo Swan is doing here meets exactly the definition of edit war. He has also reverted multiply changes without stating that in the edit summary. IQinn (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say that you and Geo Swan are the creator of all these articles. And i think you both show strong signs of ownership behavior. That is troublesome. Why don't you just have a few month off and let other editors do their work? IQinn (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended to be the only contributor to these articles. Sometimes contributors I don't recognize make positive contributions to this article, or that article, and I sincerely hope they will return, and make wider contributions to a wider selection of articles.

WRT ownership... Have you considered your own editing history? One of your criticims has been: "Why he started almost all of those hundreds of articles! He has made a huge number of edits to all these articles!"

I don't think you have noticed that this aspect of my editing history, that you characterized as a sign of my bad intentions, now equally applies to you. You too, now, in December 2009, have made a hung number of edits to all these articles. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that, since you signed on to the wikipedia, you have made twice as many edits to these articles as every other wikipedia contributor combined.

Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with you, or Sherurcij or I making the lion's share of the contributions to an article, or set of articles, provided all of our contributions complied with policy. I think the record shows that Sherurcij and I have shown we are committed to discussing other's editing concerns, and not making radical changes, without discussion. This, I believe, clears us of your charge of ownership.

I am sorry, there is no tactful way to say this. But you did raise the ownership issue. Iqinn, your record, your removal of good faith attempts to discuss your initiatives from your talk page, claiming they are harrassment, your blowing off of good faith attempts to discuss your initiatives on articles' talk pages, I think you will find uninvolved third parties are likely to see you as the one with ownership problems.

Both Sherurcij and I have encouraged you, or thanked you, when you made what we saw as helpful, positive contributions. Both Sherurcij and I have separately drawn your attention to initiatives you have considered that we agreed with, and suggested we collaborate. I suggested collaboration over List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. You have ignored our good faith attempts to work with you. You ignore requests to explain the reasoning behind your edits. You apply editorial tags that oblige you to explain why you placed the tag on the talk page -- without explaining the tags, or, just as bad, claimed, simply, that the need for the tag was "obvious". Geo Swan (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest i do not see it that way at all. And a lot of what you write here is false and would need two pages to set it straight. I will try to set some things straight. Let me make a few comments here about that before we go back to content issues. I am still waiting for an answers to my post about content issues above.

I would ignore good faith attempts to work with you. That's false

I would not engage in discussions about content issues. That's false

I would not explain my edits in edit summary and on the talk pages. That's false

I would add tags to pages without explaining them. That's false. I do explain them where it is recessionary.

A large amount of edits like mine in not a sign of ownership.

Just some examples for ownership:

"Revert - Get consensus before you make such huge changes"

"Thank you very much for that - but do not make other changes without consensus"

"Do not work on these articles - i have suggested you to work on another."

There are just some few examples... i have heard a lot of similar from you.

Yes and i removed a lot of staff from my user page because is was partly harassment and in it's summary all the edits you made there are good examples for ownership behavior.

I would suggest to work more on content issues and to let other people work on these articles. From the 700 talk pages i have seen that there where a high number of people over the last three years who seriously tried to work on them but you have driven them away with owner ship behavior, filibustering and constant reverting. At the end you created all these articles in your own way. A way that has been criticized by many people on the talk pages. IQinn (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moving of pages

Could you please explain to me why i can not move page without getting your approval first? Most of the names are based on older primary sources and wrong. I do i very carefully checking on each of them in secondary sources. I have stated clear edit summaries. I spent quite a lot of time to check them and only move if the name is confirmed by many secondary sources and when there is little doubt that it is the correct name. IQinn (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOINDEX

While doing carefully checking of a lot of information for the name corrections and moves of articles about Guantanamo detainees. I noticed that your user space pages created about Guantanamo rank very high and are sometimes the highest result for Wikipedia. I do not think it is a good thing. Guantanamo is a controversial topic and your user pages represent not the wider consensus of the community. A lot of the material that shows up are not even articles but notes about various aspects of Guantanamo. I think it would be better when only main space article would show up for the topic Guantanamo.

We have talked about that before and you promised to solve it by adding the noindex tag. Nevertheless you have not done this yet on hundreds of pages and you create new one without the tag. You have also not answered my last posting about this topic. I have offered to help to add this tag for you to the problematic pages but you rejected that. I think we need to find a solution for this specific problem. What can we do to fix this problem fast? IQinn (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May i ask you...

I am writing this post in an friendly attempt solve the various issues that are now spreading over multiply pages.

1) Could you please revert my long explanations to the content issues that you have raised to it's original state? I have requested that already before. I am sorry but it is my text and thoughts with my sign and i do not like to see it in a different way as i wrote it.

2) You have ask for explanations concerning multiply issues. I took time and have given these explanations to you. Nevertheless you did not answer or discuss about this in many instances. Instead you often disregard my explanations and ask for new ones on other pages. If you do not agree with the rational in my explanations please discuss and argue your point. You can not just disagree and keep reverting. This blocks me and has blocked other editors from making meaningful changes to these articles. I am more than willing to discuss any content issues with you. I have done this in the past and i will do this in the future.

3) You have just ask for an explanation here. I have linked this to the relevant page where this it is already under discussion.

4) You frequently raises content issues on my talk page instead of the relevant articles talk page like this one here. That may be helpful in a some cases but i think the articles talk page is the right place to discuss this isssue. I have ask you to move the discussion there but you did not answer me. I have move the discussion now to the articles talk page and will give you my explanation there.

5) Moving of pages. Do you see any move of pages that i do as controversial? I really do carefully checking and move only when there is little doubt. I case where it is not very clear i have and will raise the issue on the talk page for discussion. Other editors also do not see these moves as controversial. You think any move of pages have to be discussed with you in advanced?

6) The no_index tag. I would like you to answer my questions about this topic and to work on a solution. You did not give me an answer at all to my second post a week ago and you have not answered the recent post that i left. I know people are busy but please do answer my questions. This here is a well defined problem.

7) You have not continued the discussion here after i gave you my explanation to you. Do you think my rational is wrong? If you look for a longer answer to the question why these sources are questionable, that is already explained in the long post here on your talk page.

8) We have another issue here that need to be fixed. I have explained about it also in my long post above.

9) There are many other content issues you raised in the long post above and i do see the need that you accepped my explanations or raises valid arguments against them.

Finally i am seeing you do add new stuff to the article at the moment and i think that you did a great work to collect so many information for the articles almost by yourself. And i do hope you are not offended when i and other editors challenge your ideas, reorganize the article, style them in a differently and do edit them in any kind of way to make them better. IQinn (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May i ask you again...

Hi thank's for your comment to my user page concerning new topics. I have answered it. Here is just want to ask you in a friendly way to also answer my questions and work on issues. You are blocking other editors from making meaningful needed changes to the articles. A lot of these questions and topics are listed here just above these post. I would appreciate your cooperation. Thank you IQinn (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed black listing of fallingrain

Hi. In the circumstances that this site is continued to be used enmasse to reference articles and false population/altitude data in thousands of Pakistan, India and African articles, can you comment here and offer your thoughts on this website. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain...

First of all let me assure. I do not "hate" red links. And i never did. Your guess is wrong. I create them and they can be useful for various reasons. I am fixing a well defined problem in these articles. I left a clear edit summary for this set of edits you are requesting not to be performed. "unlink - unjustified highlighting of an allegation (highlighted for a long time now) stub could have at least been written if somebody thinks that it is a worth an article"

As you know this is an old topic and it has never been fixed. I tried to fix it a long time ago by creating redirects. This way to fix the problem was not seen as the best way by the community reflected in the RfD's. The redirects were deleted what left us again with extensive bold red links in the head lines of the allegation in some of the about 600 Guantanamo related BLP's

During the RfD's people said that to create a redirect would not be the right way to fix the problem. They said it would be a better way to just unlink it in the article or to create at least a stub for the proposed topic of the links.

These links were red-links already for years at the time of the RfD's. And other editors ask you as the creator of all these red links why you did not at least have created a stub if you think these are importend topics for an article. As i remember you did not answer him.

It has been many month now since the RfD's and still no stub has been created nor has anybody of the hundreds of thousands or millions of people who came across them in many years thought that these links were worth an article.

We still face the same problem, that we have extensive bold red links in the headlines of the allegations. Could you please explain how you to fix this problem. And could you please answer my questions regarding the other open issues so we can fix these problems as well. IQinn (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is a "well-defined problem" then I encourage you -- again -- to clearly lay out why you think it is a problem. When I first raised the issue of your redirections, back in August, you removed my civil comments from your talk page, describing them as harrassment.

I think you are mischaracterizing the {{rfd}} discussion. IIRC not one single person supported your chosen path. IIRC a minority of those voicing an opinion in those discussions initially supported total unlinking, rather than leaving the links as red-links. IIRC some of those in that minority were convinced unlinking was not desirable, after all, when I told them that the terms had been the subject of extensive study and comment in the Seton Hall reports.

I created an article for al Qaida facilitator, some time ago. A challenger nominated it for deletion. It was in fact deleted. I have since then done some work on a more general article, that addresses the concerns raised in the {{afd}}. Geo Swan (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this explanation to you before. In the edit summary. In this post here. And i will give it again to you. Because these links are in bold headlines and highlight the allegation part. They pretty stick out if you have a look at then article.

I do think my interpretation of the TfD is right. What do you think how can the problem be fixed. Unlinking, creating a stub or do you have another idea? IQinn (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use edit summaries for points that should be discussed. Use the talk page. When you put your explanation for a controversial edit in the edit summary it is an invitation to edit warring, because the easiest way for your correspondent to reply is by reverting you, putting their reply in their edit summary. Use the talk page.

Sorry, I don't find the explanation you have put here helpful. Since you think it is clearcut it should be an easy matter to supply more detail. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a controversial edit. And the explanation in the edit summary was sufficient.

What detail you want? My explanation is not helpful? I think the problem that needs to be solved i that the red-links highlight the allegations as they are in bold headlines. I thought you know. Want me to put some examples here? IQinn (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I raised my concerns over your redirection initiative several times in August. You didn't stop and engage in a meaningful discussion. You kept on creating those redirects. You say "this was not a controversial edit". I am sorry to remind you of something that you might find unpleasant, but exactly zero other people agreed with you. I nominated those redirects in batches. When the first several went against you you could have saved everyone a lot of time, and told that administrator to go ahead and erase the remainder.

Edit summaries are for (1) brief; (2) non-controversial summaries. If the edit you are explaining requires something that is not brief, or it is not something you can expect everyone to agree with, you should supplement it with a note on the talk page.

I think I said so at the time, and I continue to believe, that you are a good faith contributor. But, as Sherurcij responded when you accused him of "working closely" with me -- we are all supposed to work closely with one another. You are supposed to try to work closely with me -- and vice versa. I think the record shows that I have offered you lots of advice most people would consider considerate and collegial.

What I think you are mistaken to be doing is to come up with widespread initiatives, and put them into practice, across many articles at a time, without getting some feedback from other contributors who work on those articles. Consider your initiative to reformat the "identity" sections. Sherurcij agreed with you about "captive Nnn" -- a sign that he is prepared to continue to try to work closely with you, when you are prepared to discuss things with other contributors. But I continue to believe that bulleted points are the appropriate way to format this section. What this means is that those you removed the bulleted points will require as much work than if you had discussed the initiative before-hand.

Your broad initiative to remove wikilinks from the allegations sections is another example. Your unwillingness to discuss your initiatives ahead of time is generating a lot of work for other people.

As to whether the links are in "bold headlines"... I never put wikilinks in section headings in article space. Doing so is counter to the manuals of style. Those wikilinks aren't in bold. Maybe what you mean is that you consider red to be a bolder colour than blue. Over on the citizendium they experimented with changing the colour of red-links. They made them purple. They went back to red. For me, red does not make a link stand out. For me the slight difference in colour between the blue reserved for a recently visited link, and the blue reserved for a link that hasn't been visited recently, is more significant. Geo Swan (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely wrong i have no problem to cooperate. Your post here shows a lot of elements of ownership behavior. It is not necessary for any editor on Wikipedia to explain there edits in advanced. I have and wil do this in isolated cases where i think it could be helpful. But as i said my editing follows usual practice on WP. And usually only people described here WP:Own are demanding the explanation for edits in advanced. As this here is about cooperation i would like to ask you to answer my posts and questions. There are so many instances where you havened answered my questions or my posts. Could you please answer them? I have no problem with you or Sherurcij. You did a great job in building up this section. But please let other editors work on these articles. Let's come back to the content issue.

As it looks like we both still have a different opinion about the highlighting red links. I think some examples may could help us to make progress with this topic and i an going to collect and post these examples here. So that we have a better basis for discussion. Cheers IQinn (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most WP editors and administrators will tell you the same thing, adding sourced information does not require discussion/consensus beforehand, removing sourced information does. Most of your work on WP seems to be about deleting information, not adding it. You've supported deleting dozens of articles, but only created two. This gives the perception, rightly or wrongly, that you are undoing the hard work of others. For example, one editor (I think Geo_Swan in fact) went through hundreds of biographies sorting them into "Canadian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States", "Mexican extrajudicial prisoners of the United States", "Tunisian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States" - but then a year later you went through and removed that hard work without any prior discussion - instead just categorising them as "People from Canada" or "People from Guantanamo Bay" - rather than allowing the appropriate sub-category. I think that is what gets peoples' backs up - mine included. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have supported deleting dozens of articles. That is wrong. And if it would be true there would nothing be wrong with it. But this statement is wrong.

You are suggesting i am a vandal? That is absolutely wrong. For me it just looks like there are only two owners who have a problem with me. If you can not stand other people come and do change your stuff including deleting parts of your work - do not submit it to Wikipedia.

You may also leave some room for the discussion of the red links what this post is about. IQinn (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples:

a The detainee is a member of and supported the Taliban.

When captured, the detainee was in possession of pocket litter...[15]

The detainee is associated with al Qaida and the Taliban:

The detainee arrived in Afghanistan from Yemen via...[16]

a. The detainee is part of or supported the Taliban or al Qaida:

The detainee was deported from ...[17]

I see them in bold and these links are in red for everybody who has not visit these links previously what should be the case for nearly everybody who comes to this articles. They might not be red for your now as you are the creator of these links and has visit them before. (You may clean your browser history) I do believe these links are highlighting the allegation part in the article.

I and other have suggest various options to fix and improve on this problem. Like relinking, unlinking, creating a stub... What do you think would be the best way to improve on this issue? Thank's in advance. IQinn (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iqinn, your initial redirections were a mistake. I think it is important for you to either acknowledge this, or to acknowledge that in the seven {{tfd}} about your redirections your view was not endorsed.

Subsequent removal of the wikilinks is counter policy. You have now made close to ten thousand edits. Most wikipedia contributors have not made ten thousand edits. At my eight month mark I had only made a fraction as many edits as you have. You keep leveling the accusation at Sherurcij and I that we are engaging in ownership behaviour.

But people with ownership problems don't enter into meaningful, discussions with their challengers. People with ownership issues aren't convinced when their challengers offer valid arguments or counter-arguments. People with ownership issues don't openly acknowledge when they realize they made a mistake. People with ownership issues don't go and start to fix the good faith mistakes they made, once they are drawn to their attention.

I am confident that my record shows all the above non-ownership behaviour. However, I am sorry it isn't someone else to point this out to you -- I think if you were to review your behaviour around my good faith initial challenges to your redirection initiative, and your following behaviour, I think you would have to acknowledge that, in that particular instance at least, it was you who was showing ownership behaviour.

You ignored or were unresponsive to my good faith challenges. I was patient. I made several, over the course of weeks.
When you wouldn't respond I initiated a discussion over redirections. There is nothing wrong with you offering your best good faith defence of those redirections in those discussions. But, really, when the first couple showed there was no support for your redirection initiative, I think the responsible thing for you to do would have been to recognize the community did not agree with you, and to have agreed to tell that helpful administrator to delete all the remaining redirections. Why didn't you do this?
Subsequently, you started to erase all the wikilinks to Taliban member, associate of al Qaida, etc -- even though that was contrary to the closure of the {{tfd}}. Please understand this does not look like a show of willingness to comply with the wikipedia's policies, and wikipedia consensus. It looks like the opposite. It looks like you had and still have ownership issues about your redirections, and just can't let them go.
I think your lack of meaningful response to my concerns over your unattributed word-for-word quotes from the NYTimes shows a similar problem. It was progress for you to seek third party advice, as you finally did at the wikipedia:help desk. But, when the community gave you advice identical to advice I had given you, you didn't do what I would have done if our situations had been reversed.
1. I would have acknowledged that the initial advice I was given was correct.
2. I would then have immediately set about fixing the problem I had created.
That you have not started cleaning up after yourself? Please understand that this looks like an ownership problem.

As to the creation of the articles for Taliban member and associate of al Qaida -- I think you should just relax, and take at face value my assurance I am working on them. If you want to help feel free to go read the Seton Hall studies for yourself. Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again i would like to ask you not to argue the person and instead to focus on the content issue. I strongly disagree about most of the things you write about me and half of it is wrong and i would like to suggest you read WP:Ownership and start a separate threat if you further want to discuss that, or you bring it to other forums.

You do not address the raised content issue and you do not follow up on the conversation about the content issue that already tool place here and i would like to ask you again to work together to find a solution for it. I have posted examples and proposed solutions please focus on finding a solution and work towards consensus.

Here the last stand of our discussion concerning the content issue with the examples and proposed solutions:

~~a The detainee is a member of and supported the Taliban.~~

~~When captured, the detainee was in possession of pocket litter...[18]~~

~~The detainee is associated with al Qaida and the Taliban:~~

~~The detainee arrived in Afghanistan from Yemen via...[19]~~

~~a. The detainee is part of or supported the Taliban or al Qaida:~~

~~The detainee was deported from ...[20]~~

I see them in bold and these links are in red for everybody who has not visit these links previously what should be the case for nearly everybody who comes to this articles. They might not be red for your now as you are the creator of these links and has visit them before. (You may clean your browser history) I do believe these links are highlighting the allegation part in the article.

I and other have suggest various options to fix and improve on this problem. Like relinking, unlinking, creating a stub... What do you think would be the best way to improve on this issue? Thank's in advance. IQinn (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the previous comment from my talk page. It seems merely intended to provoke me. Much of it is a cut and paste of an earlier comment I already replied to. The other contributor is claiming that their removal of valid and useful wikilinks is under discussion. But this comment does not address my concern over their removal of valid and useful wikilinks. I don't want them to continue to claim, as they are doing elsewhere, that this issue is under discussion -- when, in fact, there is no visible sign that they are making a meaningful effort to respond to my policy-based good-faith concerns.

The other contributor is welcome to leave civil, collegial, meaningful and substantive comments. Mere repetition of points I have already address are not welcome. Comments on my character or my motives are not welcome. Repetitions of their previous orders or suggestions that I leave the project are not welcome. Geo Swan (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has never been a provocation. I apologize when you felt it was one. But please see it at what it is, a friendly attempted to come back to the real issue that has not been addressed. I have described the problem and i have suggested the possible solution in the comment that you have stroke out to bring us back to the real problem. Please address the the arguments and discuss possible solutions. What you have not done. Please respond to my friendly attempt with the description of the problem that needs to be solved and possible solution that i have suggested. The problem is not solved. Please show your willingness to work towards consensus and continue the discussion by addressing the problem and discuss the possible solutions for the problem in a civil way. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit

In one of your recent edit you removed the {{WPBiography... template from the talk page of an BLP. I can only assume that this was by mistake and you did not noticed it? I just want to inform you that i have added the template again to the page. Cheers IQinn (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your assistance please

Sorry, I've been a bit out of touch with the holidays. The image issue you raised on my talk page is a complicated one, but I'll do my best to try and sort it out in the next couple of days. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]