User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2005

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

Napoleonic code

From our own Napoleonic code article: "The term Napoleonic code is also used to refer to legal codes of other jurisdictions that are derived from the French Code Napoleon, especially the civil code of Quebec." It should also be noted that Louisiana was sold a year before the code was introduced. Both areas adopted modified versions of the code while not under the rule of France. Feel free to make this clear in the article in question. - SimonP 04:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

HMS Leopard

You are correct; I added it to the List of fictional ships and then later realised that this was the same HMS Leopard that attacked the Chesapeake. I have removed it from thelist now. Paul Tracy

tagging your uploaded images

Thanks for uploading. I notice Image:Alaska north shore.png currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Squallwc 05:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RAV line technology

It is informed speculation. Here are the reasons:

Bombardier was part of a competing bid consortium,
Not interconnected with the existing line (if they were the same technology, there would be huge benefits to tie the 2 lines together so they can move cars from one line to the other -- however, the design clearly shows that there is about 100m separating the 2 lines downtown),
New works yard provided (I believe the Bombardier had proposed expanding the existing works yard)
No announcments have been made, if it was known to be Canadian technology, I think this would have been announced
Most important: Bombardier's technology is the most expensive technology, this line is being done on the cheap.

It is possible the SNC Lavalin is still negotiating the details with the providers and there is an outside chance that Bombardier's technology could still be used, but this seems extremely unlikely. -- Webgeer July 5, 2005 22:56 (UTC)

I should also add that although the drawings in the reference design always looked like skytrain (and many of those drawings were used as part of the environmental assessment). Now that InTransit is doing their own public consultation for station design the sketches of the cars on the stations in the public consultation boards do not look like skytrain cars (more square and boxy). -- Webgeer July 5, 2005 23:16 (UTC)

CPA

Your busybody interest in my multiple identities here on Wikipedia is rather amusing. Your counterpart "Brian1975" claimed to have been there in Iraq. Since you began your quarel with me when I refused to take your side..., I would be most interested to read his/her perspective on what should have been done instead (as far as strategies go and how to impelement them). Brian1975 states that the instability of Iraq is the direct result of Bremer's and the CPA's actions. I've read a great deal of criticisms but have found none on how to implement a better plan. Since I've never been to Iraq (although a visit may be easily arranged), I find it difficult to side with you and the others because I have yet to read information or found conclusive evidence that supports your allegation linking the Americans with terrorist acts in Iraq. Ariele 17:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your suggestion that I consider using email.... I don't use email. Never cared for them and find them totally useless. I don't read 99% of mine anyways. I just "empty" my inbox or delete them as they come in. In some instances, I open them and stash them into an archive or in some forgotten folder without reading them and just let them sit until they're tossed away 6 months or 12 months later. The ONLY emails I read are the ones that ask "what's playing". That's it. Nothing more. Sorry to disappoint again. Ariele 19:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sacramento

Sacramento was already on the list of seaports; I added Stockton. Wiktionary defines seaport as "a town or harbour with facilities for seagoing ships to dock and take on or discharge cargo"; both Sacramento and Stockton, thanks to their ship canals, fit that definition. California has little, if any, river cargo traffic. Tom Radulovich 00:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stockwell

Thanks for the kind words about my uncle. Your experiences of his lectures remind me of days gone by and your insights are good. Of the man in the sweater, one of the most important lessons my grandfather taught my father and uncle who then passed onto me is that everyone has a purpose and to ignore someone due to a difference is to lose an opportunity to learn and denies their existance. For all his work and all the ugly things he's seen, he's never lost his respect for a human. He may disagree with someone's actions but he will always respect their being. I, personally agree with the keeping of the article for all the reasons given and it looks like it will be around as the voting is closed. It is also comforting to know Wikipedians like yourself care enough to look after the correctness of any article. That's what I feel is the most powerful part of this collective creation.

Thank you and take care Stockwell 06:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Hard cider" as retronym

I am not sure that your description of why "hard cider" is a retronym is correct… -- Geo Swan 08:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My addition of "hard cider" to Retronym was not based on any evaluation of how the term should be used; it is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that, in some places, what was commonly known as "cider" later acquired a qualifier of "hard" to distinguish it from other ciders. That is what a retronym is. To quote the article on Cider:

In North America, cider was traditionally fermented, but that alcoholic apple drink… is now referred to as hard cider.

and the introduction to Retronym:

A retronym is a new word or phrase coined for an old object or concept whose original name has become used for something else or is no longer unique.

I am satisfied that, based on our own data in Wikipedia, "hard cider" is a retronym. If you aren't, you can, of course, remove it yourself. But might I suggest you post your concern on Talk:Retronym, or, better yet, Talk:Cider, and explain your case? You might get more informed commentary and/or sources than I can provide. (I'm certainly no expert on the term's etymology.) And if not, you can feel more sure about removing it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not a minor change

Your recent edit to Talk:Cider was scarcely minor; it added a whole new heading.

Khadr

That he was born in Bahrain was the considered a fact by most Canadian newspapers. e.g.

"Mr. Khadr was born in Bahrain but is a Canadian citizen." National Post. Nov 26, 2003.
"Mr. Khadr was born in Bahrain but is a citizen of Canada and was raised in Scarborough as well as in Pakistan and Afghanistan" National Post. Dec 1, 2003.
"Khadr is a 20-year-old Canadian citizen who was born in Bahrain." Vancouver Sun. Dec 2, 2003.
"Her son Abdurahman was born in Bahrain but, because both his parents were Canadian citizens, he had a right to Canadian nationality as well." Toronto Star. May 1, 2004

It is certainly not impossible that the papers were mistaken. That one reporter erroneously stated he was born in Bahrain and all the others then repeated the fact. No paper has mentioned his Bahrainian birth since May 2004, so it is possible they became aware that it was untrue at that point. - SimonP 13:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Minusa Basin maps

I would not mind a smaller detail of your map here to complement the article Afanasevo culture. What I'm looking for is a detail of the Minusa River valley, which is the eastern river flowing into the Yenisei River just above the end of the big reservoir formed by Krasnoyarsk Dam. The town of Minusinsk is at the confluence of the Minusa and Yenisei. My software and hardware are rather primitive. Even just a circle highlighting this area would be useful. --FourthAve 10:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help. I need some more information though. Can you give me some latitudes and longitudes? Can you give me the latitude and longitude of Minusinsk? -- Geo Swan 22:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were three rivers near Minisinck. I wasn't sure which one you meant. So take your pick...

My first guess -- I don't know where the eastern end of the basin is. So I just guessed. -- Geo Swan 23:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've left a note here: Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board to my sure my identification of the river location is correct. I've also credited you in the source section of the Afanasevo culture article.

Vandals

I think it would be okay to reinsert; vandal removals are almost always cases for autorevert. But if a non-vandal removes it, then take it to talk. -- Essjay · Talk 15:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

River Afan and Afan

All the text relating to the medieval history has been retained from the original article ( whose valley formed the territory of the medieval Lords of Afan ......... A motte and bailey castle stood on the banks of the river during the medieval period....etc.) . I simply honoured the link put there by others as I had no knowledge of the history. It would be preferable to link the States in Medieval Britain directly to the River Afan which I have now done. Velela 21:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USCGC Question

I know you posted your message back in February, but I wanted to just let you know that even though the ships listed in the USCG seagoing buoy tender article are in fact buoy tenders...they are ALSO considered cutters. A cutter is simply any Coast Guard ship that "is a vessel 65 feet (20 m) in length or greater, having adequate accommodations for crew to live on board." It's a pretty broad definition to be sure, but they are in fact classified as cutters.

I used to work on the USCGC Taney and a couple years ago the USCGC Sequoia (WLB-215) came along side us and lowered their gangway which sure enough said in big bold letters "United States Coast Guard Cutter Sequoia."

Hope that answers your question or puts your mind to ease a bit.--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pantograph... + minor edits

Thanks for pointing that out. I should have been more careful with the links, but I was just quickly cleaning up the article. By the way, turns out you didn't change it. I've done it now, so it's all right.

I couldn't help but notice that you keep tagging all your edits as 'minor'. Can you tell me why this is, because some of them certainly aren't minor? (See Wikipedia:Minor edit for the definition of a minor edit.) - ulayiti (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Wikipedia to Toronto

I've been working on a bid to bring Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. I have contacted KMDI, an institute at the University of Toronto. They are very interested in partnering with us, and can get us a full range of U of T facilities for free. With this offer I think there is a very good chance of bringing Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. The only thing we currently lack are people willing to help out. I'm willing to do much of the work, but for the time being I am in Ottawa and having some people on the ground in Toronto will be necessary. We also need a number of people willing to assist at the actual event, likely the first weekend of August 2006. If you are interested in helping out sign up at Wikimania 2006/Toronto. Preliminary bids from various cities need to be made by Sept. 30, 2005, at which point a committee will choose which city gets to host the event. The number of people willing to help will certainly be an important consideration. - SimonP 16:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hans Island picture

I tried to contact the GSoC about the photo weeks ago, but haven't received a response. I decided to post it anyway. Earlier, the photo wasn't showing up properly, so I assumed that there was a copyright problem and removed it. I probably assumed wrong, and since you're protesting its removal, I'll put it back up. By the way, I originally found the photo here: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/17/17186/1.html Oystergumbo 05:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Iguana

I have re-read the article and realise that the main bit I found odd (POV) was ambiguous, and the intended meaning was different, so I have clarified it. No doubt my clarification could do with clarification should you care to look. Rich Farmbrough 14:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marine Atlantic ferry ports.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Marine Atlantic ferry ports.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri

I was the one who put Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri into the {tl|crime-bio-stub}. Here is why:

The crime-bio-stub category is clearly not just for criminals (whatever that means) but for all biographies relating to crime.
Further, it says in the crime-bio-stub category page, that alleged terrorists and alleged criminals also belong there

I am sorry about this confrontation, but I guess that's the problem with the {tl|crime-bio-stub} tag--that many people assume that adding this tag is the same as calling the person a criminal, and find this biased.--Carabinieri 08:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your response:

you wrote

It took me some time to find. Frankly, I was shocked to learn you You created this category.

You wrote about it as if someone else had created it. Forgive me, but, since you created it, I would question whether you are the right person to interpret what it is clear it means. You say (created as proposed on WSS/P).

That is not very transparent. Where is this discussion you hint at?

Yes, I did find it biased. I still do. Some of the people you stubbed not only haven't been convicted of any crime, they haven't been charged with any crimes

I created this category as a result of the consensus, whic was found in a discussion on this page (you'll have to look under September proposals). It wasn't therefore a unilateral decision of mine to create this but a consensus of all who decided to participate in the discussion.

As to the bias: I hope you agree with me when I say that the fact that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri was arrested as an unlawful combatant (which I guess anyone of Middle Eastern origin or with a dissenting opinion can be, since the USA Patriot Act was passed) implies that he was somehow involved in criminal acts. He really may or may not have been, hence the word allegedly. Maybe there is a problem with how the template is formulated. I would be glad to hear any suggestions as to how the wording could be changed. I added a paragraph to the stub category page in order to make it more clear who belongs and who doesn't belong into this category. If you have any suggestions as to how this paragraph could be improved, I would also love to hear these. If you think the stub category itself is problematic, then I guess we could re-open a discussion on the Stub Sorting project pages somewhere on the legitimacy of the category.--Carabinieri 09:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be ok with it if i asked Grutness and User:Alynna.Kasmira (they participated in the discussion about my proposal to create this category) to participate in a discussion on the Talk page of the Crime biography stub category page, where we can decide who should and who shouldn't be included in this category? I'll use your definition while sorting stubs until we clear it in this discussion. Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri can just be listed as a {{MEast-bio-stub}} until then.--Carabinieri 10:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Daniel Coburn

I was merely sorting the stub, not actually passing any judgement, none whatsoever :) I don't do it recursively - i.e. I never saw the link to the other person - I just do it by trawling the people stubs category and subcategorizing one by one, each after a brief skim.

I've checked the other article now and it's not a stub, so it can't be sorted the same way as this one. Although, we could add it to a category related to the comitted crimes.

It would probably be best to add the missing biographical bits about Daniel Coburn and remove the stub markers altogether. --Joy [shallot] 11:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it needs to be pointed out that crime-bio-stub doesn't mark someone as a criminal, it merely states that this biography is encyclopedic matter because of the person's relation to a crime. --Joy [shallot] 11:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lotfi Raissi

I just wanted to thank you for expanding the Lotfi Raissi article, I've seen your contributions to other similar-genre articles in the past - and am always glad when an article dealing with the life of a media-villanized "terror suspect" gets significantly contributed towards. (I was the person you had to correct on the Khadr family's nationalities, a couple months ago). Anyhow, just a word of encouragement and appreciation for your work. Sherurcij 16:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As per the Gitmo detainees, I've done some work wikifying the article on Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i, it would likely be a good idea for you to try and follow a similar format for the others. Lends it a more professional air that is less easily dismissed. Sherurcij 05:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another thanks for the awesome work on the Khalden training camp, I had no idea most of those people attended, and the referencing is superb! Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 06:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vergée

Hi,

You contributed to Talk:Vergée. I agree it was ambiguous. I did some research and have tried to improve the article.

Several people are trying to raise the standard of all unit articles. The discussions are in several places, but you may wish to look at Talk:Units of measurement. Bobblewik 12:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Category

I wanted to make you aware that I'd just created Category:Wrongly accused terrorism suspects, which at this point is dealing with 4 people initially accused of being 9/11 hijackers or otherwise - but I'd welcome you to add similar articles to the category if they have since been acquitted of charges. Sherurcij 18:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had my map deleted and I replaced it with yours in the article. I decided to do so on the basis that it was not my best work and that I really did not like it much anyway. Really, the only things that are wrong with your map are that the ferry routes need to be drawn in and that some of the distracting text should be removed. Alr 01:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Stevens

Yeah, I moved the Cat Stevens from Yusuf Islam. I thought it was supposed to move the talk page too though. --Hottentot

Image gallery

Hi Geo Swan, great work on the maps. Im not sure if the maps on your front page just to look at or if they are there ready for you to cut and paste them into articles. Anyhow, they were kinda hard to look at. I'm not sure if you know about the <gallery> markup, but ive put all the images on your user page into a gallery and put it here – just go and grab it if you want, if not then dont worry about me :-) cheers. —deanos {_p^t_a^a_*^l_g^k_e} 06:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{NPOV} to Extreme Reaction Force

What was posted on my talk apge:

When you add a tag, like {NPOV}, aren't you supposed to go to the talk page, and say why you tagged the article?

You can't expect other contributors to be able to reach a compromise with you, if you don't say what you think is not neutral. -- Geo Swan 04:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my response:

I put the NPOV tag on this article mainly to ask other editors to examine it and reach an opinion. Actually, the verify tag, asking for sources, might be a better choice. If people examine it and feel it is NPOV then they are free to remove the tag I added. Thank you for talking to me about this. I just made a few more formatting changes to the page. I'll try to add something clear to the articlesd talk page in a few minutes. RJFJR 04:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great maps!

Those maps really is improving the articles, like the one about Kirkenes! Orcaborealis 18:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees discussion

You are correct Geo, I didn't check the history properly and made an incorrect assumption. This doesn't change my view that the copy-vio notification is in bad faith. What bothers me about this is that Joaquin Murietta intimated that he would investigate his concerns about sources and return to discuss these. This pre-emptive copy-vio notification seems to me just to be a 'legal' method of achieving partial page blanking and imposition of a particular POV. Seems to me that you were just expending a great deal of energy to verify the list, and you did a fantastic job IMO.

As for the link you provide, well I recall that Zoe cited anti-Americanism in her listing of the main article on AfD. I reject that POV completely and did so in the AfD voting, as did others. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geo, keep up the good fight. There is not much more I can add to your comments on the talk page about the inadequacy of JM's position, you have covered all the angles. The copy-vio argument is just patent nonsense. I suspected a POV agenda by JM from the outset, but quickly became convinced this was the motive as he started to respond. Hiding behing a copy-vio tag is just a sneaky way of 'legitimising' the blanking of content whilst preventing those in disagreement from reinstating it without violating WP policy. Know any good level-headed admins who could have a look at this whole issue and kick it into touch for good? Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on the copyvio charge. Brandon39 02:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Online Map Creation Tool

Just tried out the Online Map Creation listed on your user page - FANTASTIC. The internet never ceases to amaze me, now added to my bookmarks =:-) --Cactus.man ✍ 16:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geo, I have been experimenting further with the tool - bit of a learning curve with all the different projections and refining of the co-ordinates precisely, but I will persevere. You mentioned that you found some guidance on recommended colours for the maps, any idea where it was as I can't find it anywhere - WP search and help facilities leave a lot to be desired !! You should also be able to change the colours directly in the PNG file, but I am not sure if you can do that in Irfanview. I use PSP and it is pretty straightforward for me. If you need any help in converting, let me know.

As for other matters, I think you are wasting time and energy offering olive branches to JM as his brusque responses demonstrate. Seems to be a POV warrior, possibly with a personal agenda against you also. Call me a conspiracist, but I have never seen him or Zoe in the same room together ... =:-) Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, mistaken afd

sincere apologies - a nonsensical page merging the names of three pages appeared under the category Category:People from Ontario. the contents of the page were on a U.S. detainee with an Ontario connection (Omar Khadr), whose page also appears separately in the category list and intact - i ll double check now that my afd hasn t appeared on the two pages too. again, my apologies, -Mayumashu 05:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i checked and your userpage does not appear to be on the AfD list. again, apologies for the mishap, whatever its quirky cause was. -Mayumashu 05:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you certainly have had a battle on your hands with getting those pages out and i m glad to see you re succeeding - there s nothing worse in compiling information than people who can not see more than one side to things and wish to suppress information. i can see too why you would a bit on edge about having your work AfDed given the lack of reasoning at work with those who have wanted to delete your pages connecting with the detainee situation. all the best and sincere regards, -Mayumashu 06:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copy vio and Sourcing for Guantanamo articles

First, let me accept your apology, placed on my talk page. You have made several accusations in anger, perhaps you are very young? Such conduct does not further your advocacy of the movement to free the detainees in Guantanamo.

Second, let us dialogue.

I customarily do not use the phrase "Gitmo", which I consider to be a symbol of Anglo-American domination. "Guantanamo" is svelte, linguistically-appropriate, and, of course, the actual name. I would ask you to reconsider your use of the phrase "Gitmo" and the socio-economic implications of nicknames imposed by your society on ours.

Second, I have rewritten several of your Guantanamo articles.

I have rewritten them to eliminate the obvious POV problems and to correct what can only be described as glaring grammatical errors.

Third, with respect to the copyvio, you have spent more time arguing about it, here, on my talk page, on the article's talk page, etc. etc. etc., than it would take to fix a table that was obviously lifted from the newspaper.

Here is a source that you could use to rewrite the table. It is my gift to you.

Finally, you asked if I would promise to talk talk talk talk in lieu of editing, AfD-ing, template-placing etc. The answer is negativo. No one controls Joaquin Murietta, the voz de la gente.

Anyway, think about it. Your articles really need a lot of work. If you are going to agitprop, then do it with class.

Con safos

Joaquin

The Associated Press Court Documents Archive It consists of a list of detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, with click-able links to Federal court documents, by detainee. These apply to those detainess who have filed lawsuits in Federal Court. The original source documents are archived in .pdf. Might be more accurate than just copying the table from a newspaper. Joaquin Murietta 15:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Murietta 16:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV and the Clive Stafford Smith Article

It's not about the politics, it's about the writing. Bad writing is bad writing. Every time someone tells you, User: Geo Swanthat your articles need work, you assume bad faith. You assume that they are part of a tinfoil hat conspiracy to deprive you of your forum. And then you run around, posting on different people's pages, asking people to e-mail you, asking them to talk about it.

Here. Take a look at the current Clive Stafford Smith article. Compare your best version to the current version and tell me which is best.

All that complaining.

Well, here is my complaint. I object to the way you used the Clive Stafford Smith article as a mere tool for your POV agitprop documentation of the Guatanamo detainee movement.

Clive deserved a better article. Now he has it. No thanks to you or the cactus flower.

Kind regards Joaquin Murietta 22:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benyam Mohammed NPOV

I have edited Benyam Mohammed to cure the obvious POV issues and have added basic facts for any bio, such as date of birth, full name, the dates of events. The problem, Geo Swan is that when you create these hundreds of politically motivated stubs, for the sole purpose of getting more hits on Google, that you forget to include the basic information. Please see my comments at Talk:Benyam Mohammed. Joaquin Murietta 15:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Celucci afd

I nominated your Paul Celucci article because it is POV, and everything of significance about the Ambassador has been covered in the Paul Cellucci article. Apart from your mispelling of the Ambassador's name, if you compare the two articles you will see that the latter handles the controversy in a NPOV manner. Joaquin Murietta 04:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Hagi Fiz

Please see my comments on the talk page of Mohammed Hagi Fiz. Joaquin Murietta 15:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

Hi, it's always nice to find someone with similar views on deleting articles. I haven't been to AfD for a few days, what articles were nominated? I've already found Hisham Sliti. There seems to be a pretty active campaign by Joaquin Murietta to whitewash some parts of the "War on Terror" going on here. --Apyule 15:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio on List of Guantanamo Bay Detainees

They copyvio filing looks pretty sketchy to me, from what I can understand. Are we going to say next we can't post news items because the Washington Post publishes those too? Anyway, let me know if there's anywhere I can state my views that would be helpful. -- SCZenz 15:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. This is clearly political in nature, and completely bloody stupid besides. Anywhere I can offer my support to an attempt to get this copyvio notice deleted, just let me know. Vizjim 13:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faith

I am not a man of faith, but my faith is being restored =:-)

I did a bit of work on Jamal Kiyemba, and took out the quotation because it was attributed to Binyam Mohammed. I think it could properly be placed in his article, what do you think? --Cactus.man ✍ 16:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just been bold and added it. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the article you started on Abderrahman Ahmad

I just edited Abderrahman Ahmad. I added his date of birth. Also, it appears you got his name wrong and he was arrested in Pakistan not Afghanistan. I deleted some irrelevant stuff and some NPOV outdated links. I added some recent news. Please let me know if this appears to be in bad faith or do you want to revert it to your version. Joaquin Murietta 18:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Since you voted to keep the article List of Guantanamo Bay detainees I thought I would give you a "heads-up". A copyright violation was filed against the article, on October 11th. It was filed by someone who had voted to delete the article on October 5th.

I believe that the copyright violation is entirely bogus. I believe it is bogus because, as explained in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, lists of facts, like lists of names, cannot be copyright. This Feist v. Rural case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which made the possibly counter-intuitive ruling that the amount of effort someone put in to compiling a list plays no role in determining whether that list is eligible for copyright protection.

Even if alphabetic lists of names could be copyright, I believe the wikipedia list would not be violating copyright since the list was compiled from various sources.

Yes, I have considered that this user invoked a bogus copyright violation to achieve a result that failed in the {AfD}. Yes, I asked them to terminate the copyright violation process, in light of Feist v Rural. They declined. The backlog in the administrators dealing with copyright violations seems to be on the order of a month long.

Anyhow, I wanted the people who had shown interest in the article to not freak out, or feel betrayed, by seeing the copyright violation tag. -- Geo Swan 11:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Decumanus"

The heads-up

The wikipedia is a community JM. We are all responsible to one another, for what we do and say.

I don't think I did wrong to give the heads-up. Now I saw your comments, where you talked about me and my friends calling you a "right wing cuban", a "Mexican bandito". I think the record shows I haven't called you any names, including these two. But, the historical person whose name you borrowed for your nom de plume, the real Joauquin Marietta, was a bandit. I agreed to stop using the term "gitmo", as did the other person you asked. You made that request stating that the term reminded you of the historical oppression of your people. I was going to ask you if you were really Cuban, but I didn't get around to it. I don't remember seeing anyone call you a Cuban, let alone a right wirng Cuban, but, if they did, to what extent are those descriptions forgivable, since you opened those doors yourself?

As for troll, and bad faith. I am old enough to only count someone as a troll when I think their edits are insincere. When your possible trolldom came up I said I thought your edits were sincere.

As for bad faith -- no one, other than you, really knows whether your actions were taken in good faith. All we have to go by is whether your action gave an appearance of good faith. Rather than making flat out accusations of bad faith, I tried to confine myself to suggestions that your actions gave the appearance of bad faith. I stand by that. It is not only your coyness about the true nature of your concerns, from October 5th, until you froze the list on October 11th, and your freezing of it, without any discussion, where your misconception, like the misconception that the WaPo was the "sole source" could have been dealt with.

You showed no meaningful effort to discuss your invocation of the {copy-vio} after you placed it. I don't think your defense of the invocation on the {copy-vio} page showed good faith because you misrepresented me, my statements, and my actions, and you misrepresented the meaning of Feist v Rural.

Other actions you have taken have given the appearance of bad faith. You nominated the Carolyn Wood article for deletion, based on your perception it had irredeemable POV problems. I believe you know this action was in violation of wiki policy. POV problems are not grounds for deletion. Period. You didn't even voice the nature of your concerns. I pointed out that you had violated wiki policy, and so did Cactus.man. You didn't acknowledge our questions. Still haven't. This did not give the appearance of good faith.

You have made massive edits, without explanation, or with inadequate explanations like, "removing obvious POV". This did not give the appearance of good faith.

You have criticized my grammar in a very personal way. That is a violation of wiki policy that did not give the appearance of good faith.

You criticized my maturity. And you have mocked the quality of my contributions. Neither of these actions gave the appearance of good faith.

You accused me of making stub articles solely for the purpose of subverting the results of google searchs. You didn't suggest it looked like this was what I was doing. You came right out and accused me of it. This did not give the appearance of good faith.

In the last few days you have told people how you had made "helpful" suggestions as to how I could edit the list to eliminate what you perceived as a {copy-vio}. Hello. You made this "helpful" suggestion days after you invoked the {copy-vio}, freezing the list. This "helpful" suggestion did not give the appearance of good faith to me. It might to those you told it to, who only heard your version. But it didn't to me. To me it gave the appearance of a big Foxtrot Oscar.

The list that was your gift to me? Also a Foxtrot Oscar, since I had already incorporated the names from the AP list into the wiki list over two weeks ago.

Now, about your edits, and your very personal criticisms of my edits. I would be among the first to acknowledge that the Clive Stafford Smith article was improved after the work you and Dfiv put into it. Good work. Congratulations. But your comment about my contributions to that article was personal and unfair, and unwiki. I don't think I have anything to apologize for my contributions to that article, or Gareth Pierce, or any of the biographies you criticized for lacking birth dates.

The start you put on the Joyce Hens Green was excellent. Let me acknowledge that. Other edits of the last day or two give the appearance of good faith.

Like I have said before, I am open to discussing any serious issue or question you pose to me in a civil manner. I'll repeat, good work on the Joyce Hens Green article, and many other recent edits. -- Geo Swan 16:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blather and spew! And, pretentious. Joaquin Murietta 18:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Globes

Very cool. I don't have an immediate use for one in my articles, but have bookmarked them for future use. Walter Siegmund 19:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your review of the book you didn't read Bush on the Couch

How can you possibly justify writing and then editing a book review for Bush on the Couch when you never read the book? Here is your admission I haven't read the book. But I have read several articles about it. I believe the brief summary in the article accurately reflects what the articles and reviews of the book said the book contained. Here are some reviews from across the political spectrum Please explain this to those of us who actually read books. Joaquin Murietta 15:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you calm down, and re-read the passage you just quoted. Did I say I was writing or editing a book review? Um, no, I did not. So, do I have to justify writing a book review on a book I didn't read? No I do not.

Read it again. "I believe the brief summary in the article accurately reflects what the articles and reviews of the book said it contained." That is the standard you should hold me to. Does my brief summary say what reviewers said the book contained? I don't think there is any real question that it does.

Now there is a slim possibility that the review of the conservative Weekly Standard, the review of the liberal Salon, and of the left wing Political affairs are all misrepresenting what Frank's book really says. Even so, my summary of their common elements is a fair summary. So, even if those reviews from across the political spectrum were all mistaken, or in cahoots, my brief summary would still be a fair summary of the reviews.

The book is important, and would merit an article solely because people like you and I, who haven't read it, have opinions about it.

You called the brief summary I wrote "inaccurate". I have asked you several times what you base your opinion of its accuracy on. I am going to assume your reluctance to reply is based on you deciding it was inaccurate without first taking any steps to learn its contents. Well, that would be wrong, much more serious than what you are suggesting I did.

Alternatively, maybe you allowed yourself to base your judgement of the accuracy of the article summarizing the book on your judgement of the accuracy of the views expressed in the book? Well, that would be wrong, a serious mistake as well.

If you were a heavy-duty christian we wouldn't allow you to delete all books on satanism or wicca. Or vice versa. If you were heavy duty in favour of legal abortion we wouldn't allow you to eliminate all articles that contained descriptions of arguments against legal abortion. Or vice versa. The wikipedia shouldn't allow people to eliminate articles that express views simply because they disagree with them. -- Geo Swan 15:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Frank

Hello, I can see you are in some kind of a flame war regarding Bush on the Couch, which I could not really care less about. However, the copy and paste to the Justin Frank article is not very cool. As it stands now, it just warrants a redirect to Bush on the Couch. Why not just let the Afd process play itself out? --JJay 16:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on my talk page. You may very well be the wronged party in all this, but I have no idea. If I have time I'll look into it further. But I do think Justin Frank should remain a stub at this point, pending the outcome of Afd. If Bush on the Couch remains then Justin Frank could very well become a redirect.

What I don't like is all this nonsense flying into articles in the main encyclopedia, particularly by people with user pages- its hard enough to catch the junk from anoms. Clearly Joaquin Murietta was wrong to post a personal attack as an article and I left him a messsage on his user page. --JJay 17:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "List of high value detainees" article

In response to your note on my user page, no, I don't have any concerns about the article other than the title (I think it's a worthwhile contribution), and no, sorry, but try as I might, I can't think what the title should be. List of al Qaeda captives in CIA custody isn't quite right - if the intention of the article is to focus specifically on the more significant detainees, then this should be reflected in the title. Best of luck with finding a solution. TheMadBaron 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you left a note on my page as well, to which I am finally replying. I concur with TMB 0 the article is worthy (and getting better, too!) but the title... I will think and get back to you on the article's talk page. KillerChihuahua 22:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, added a list to the talk page to get us started. Let's see what we can figure out. KillerChihuahua 20:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of Drake Passage

Hello,

would you mind putting these two maps on commons ?

Image:Drake Passage - Lambert Azimuthal projection.png
Image:Drake Passage - Orthographic projection.png

Thanks in advance

Poppypetty 06:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I am not sure to get you. Do you know how to upload a file in Commons or do you want me do that for you ? Poppypetty 08:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So what you've to do first is create an account on Commons (basically to make sure that we know where the pictures come from, you can't upload without it). Then, on the left side, there should be a link "Upload file". After that it's wery similar to what you do in wiki (set up names, explanations). Then comes the licence. I am not really good for that. For my own, I chose [1]. Best. Poppypetty 02:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I uploaded about two dozen orthographic maps, with both liscenses -- Geo Swan 03:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Poppypetty 20:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Copyvios

Hi there. I'm sorry you've come to feel rather burned in recent weeks. Copyvios are strange things: most of the time they're obvious copypastes either by someone advertising their company or a well-meaning newbie borrowing from somewhere. When they are less clear cut, it becomes interpretive, and most of us on here, myself included have no legal training. In those cases, I generally defer to the opinion of the editors whom I trust and who have demonstrated their legal capabilities. Copyvios are not debates in the manner that AfDs are, for obvious reasons. I figure that the juriwiki-l mailing list can be used if absolutely necessary. To answer your questions:

The copyvio is over for the time being. Based on what I know of USA copyright and very closely related discussions, many people think we are ok with lists, particularly those compiled from multiple sources, largely because facts cannot be copyrighted. The presentation of those facts can be, however. So, in my personal, non-expert opinion we are ok with the article until the lawyers tell us otherwise. (Or some court case clarifies things.)
The pages are preserved as a record. If you find an admin has deleted one of them, just ask them to restore it. I haven't actually listed them anywhere, but their names are easy enough to guess by looking at the source for the WP:CP main page. Perhaps I should make a /Logs page to make that easier. Also, the pages are blanked as they are dealt with to make clear which reports have been dealt with, but the history can obviously be used to recover the original state of the page. Perhaps we should revert a completed page to its end-of-day state after we remove it from CP altogether.
I think you have had a bad experience with this user. Whether that is enough to file an RfC, I don't honestly know. That depends on whether you are sure the actions were in bad-faith, and whether they have continued. If they have continued, and you and others have tried and failed to resolve the situation with JM, then you can probably file an RfC. Note that an RfC must be certified by two editors who have both tried and faild to resolve with the disputed party. RfCs can serve either to generate comments or as part of the road to Arbitration — don't follow that road unless you absolutely must. If the problems are continuing, I can try having a talk with JM and you together as a neutral third-party, if you simply cannot fix things up yourself.
Yes, if an editor is being severely disruptive. Making good-faith nominations on AfD (even from a single editor's contribs list) and filing honestly-presumed copyvios doesn't count as disruption. It may just be that JM thinks the articles nominated should have been deleted: it wouldn't be surprising in this case to nominate a whole bunch of related articles and for those to stem largely from one other editor. That may just be a disagreement over what should and should not be in Wikipedia.

There is indeed a considerable backlog, but the feedback is appreciated. To your comments:

Yes, it is very rare. As I said above, the overwhelming majority of them are cut-and-dry copypastes. Sometimes we get a claim of permission that has to be followed up, but these are in the minority.
Yes, they can respond, as can anyone else.
It can be done either on the copyvio listing or on the article's talk page. Often, when someone claims to own the material, they leave a note on talk because they don't realise about the copyvio listing. If a debate has/is been held on the talk page, it's useful to note that in the copyvio listing to make sure an admin doesn't miss it when they come to deal with it.
That's true, it doesn't. This is because the date link on the template is dynamic and always points to today, rather than the day it was listed. I think this is a technical problem, but I will ask someone who knows about these things if it can be fixed.

I hope some of that helps. -Splash^talk 22:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You tell me if you need a revert somewhere or a vote somewhere! Im on your side! --Striver 17:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ongoing JM Vendetta

Hi Geo, I thought things had settled down with with our mutual friend JM. Well, I was clearly wrong. He has obviously been continuing his vendetta against you, and now it seems me too. I was doing a bit of vandalism clean up today and JM popped up following one of my reverts after which there was a bit of a futile exchange. He had clearly been monitoring my edits. Despite my attempts to explain and reason with him I had to give up in the end. There is no prospect of rational discussion with him and I have now completely given up all hope that his vendetta against you will end. (How did it start in the first place, was it going before the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees copy vio episode?)

I now have the great honour of being added to his 'dossier' on you. (See Joaquin Murietta GS). User:Striver has also been added. This all smacks of stalker like behaviour, and is all very unnecessary. I see from the above discussion with User:Splash that you may be considering filing an RfC, well I am not sure that this is necessary yet, but if you feel compelled to do so, you will have my support. I really am disheartened at JM's attitude and behaviour over the last month or so. It is all very baffling as he seems to create quite a large number of decent articles as well as wasting everyones time and energy with this disruptive behaviour pattern. The joys of WP ... Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Songs in triple meter

Thanks for the support on the afd page for Songs in triple meter. I created that page and added all but about 3 of the songs and you may know now that it has now been deleted even though the vote was something like 11 to 8 with half or more of the 11 knowing little or nothing about time signatures. I didn't know it was a raw numbers kind of affair. Live and learn I guess. I asked for the page to be undeleted and any suggestions you have or support you could show in this regard would be welcome. Thanks. Hraefen 02:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFGHANISTAN WAR

I read this information in a book I am reading at the moment about the conflict in Afghanistan, I cannot find any information on the web to support same, you can change it if you think it is incorrect. (Khan 22:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Assad

The term "terror" (short for "terrorism" I presume) itself is POV, and originates only from the language of a particular (albeit politically powerful) POV. The term "suspect" is likewise POV, as such relies on information given by POV authorities. Both are likewise an improper designation for a title, but put them together and the title is doubly POV. Muhammad Assan (al Qaida) may be proper, but the issue of disambiguation from other individuals is not an issue until theres an article about someone else with that name. -St|eve 01:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how "Muhammad Assad (al Qaeda)" is more satisfactory.

He was repatriated. If he was really an al Qaeda member I think it is extremely unlikely US intelligence officials would ever have released him. I think including "suspect" clarifies, to a fair-minded reader, that he may be innocent.

I remain curious as to why you consider detainee to present a biased POV. -- Geo Swan 01:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ogoki River

Hi, just letting you know I responded to a comment you left on Talk:Ogoki River back in March. --Qviri 22:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your voice

Allo again Geo Swan, I've recently come up for admin-nomination and would appreciate your input on the matter, whether positive or negative. It seems you and I have worked on a lot of the same articles as each other, as well as working to save the articles on specific Guantanamo detainees and such, so I figure you may have some insight to offer. Much thanks! Sherurcij 01:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Always bet on black

That's strange... Wesley Snipes' character said it to Bruce Payne's character over the airplane telephone. It's even quoted on IMDb. -- Slicing 02:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Great Slave Lake and Lake Athabasca 6.png

Can you pls. confirm that you are the author of that image and also add this information on the Commons image description page? Thanks, -- RainerBi ✉ 18:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Americanism

Your anti-Americanism is neither acceptable nor appreciated. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I quite concur. Kade 17:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military Commission/Tribunal

It seems to me that the two articles probably should be merged, but since it would not be fair to so heavily weight such a broad article onto discussing individual guantanamo cases and such...we would 'need' to create a seperate to see the full article dealing with this section, see Guantanamo Military Tribunals on the general commission page. Opinions? (btw, don't know if you ever got my eMail or not about starting up a WikiProject specifically about the war on terror...I'd love to see articles on a lot of the people that it seems only a few of us have heard of, even though they're important global figures) Sherurcij 17:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

puppets

"So, do you know another way, beyond subjectively looking for patterns, to detect if multiple userids post from the same IP? I'll offer it to my accuser. Thanks."

Well, there are a few users with the capability, I believe they are listed somewhere over on the arbitration page. You need a compelling reason for a check though, not just an ordinary dispute. Of course, you can always tell an i.p. if the user doesn't log in. You could just ask the user to make such a post, so you can check. That's not so helpful if they have access to multiple i.p. addresses.

On the sneakier side, you might be able to get both ends of a puppet to post under different i.p.'s (home/work for example), under their mistaken assumption that this will disprove puppetry. Conveniently, you can check the origin of an i.p. using geobytes.com. So, if they're both in Sacramento, you've probably got yourself a puppet. Of course, offering that last tip to your accuser won't help in this case, since it depends on ignorance. Derex 17:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Priest

I don't want to get into the idle chatter I see on many registered user's Talk pages--I just want to help build an encyclopedia. I'm glad you wrote an original (and overall more informative) article about her. Most of the edits involved adding links to the cut and pasted text. The article that was deleted (other than a few external links tacked onto the end):

National Security Correspondent for the Washington Post
She spent the previous eight years writing about the U.S. military. Her book about the military's expanding responsibility and influence, "THE MISSION: Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military," published in Feb. 2003 by WW Norton & Co.
She has worked at the Post for 15 years, where she was the Post's Pentagon correspondent for six years and then wrote exclusively about the military as an investigative reporter. She was one of the first reporters on the ground for the invasion of Panama (1989), reported from Iraq in late 1990 just before the war began, and covered the 1999 Kosovo war from air bases in Europe.
She has written extensively for The Post about the nation's four regional commanders-in-chief, Army Special Forces training programs overseas, the 1999 Kosovo air war and the Army's peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo.
In 2001, Priest was awarded a prestigious MacArthur Foundation Research and Writing grant. The same year, she won the Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on the National Defense for her series "The Proconsuls: A Four-Star Foreign Policy?" and the State Department's Excellence in Journalism Award for the same series. She was the guest speaker and host for a four-part speaking series on the U.S. Military and Foreign Policy for the Secretary's Open Forum. She also was a guest scholar in residence at the U.S. Institute of Peace.
Priest holds a B.A. in political science from the University of California at Santa Cruz. She lives in Washington DC with her husband, William Goodfellow, and two children. Goodfellow is Executive Director at the liberal Center for International Policy.

PBS bio[2]:

National Security Correspondent The Washington Post
Watch Priest's most recent appearances on Washington Week
Dana Priest
Dana Priest covers the intelligence community for The Washington Post. She spent the previous eight years writing about the U.S. military. Her book about the military's expanding responsibility and influence, "THE MISSION: Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military," published in Feb. 2003 by WW Norton & Co.
She has worked at the Post for 15 years, where she was the Post's Pentagon correspondent for six years and then wrote exclusively about the military as an investigative reporter. She was one of the first reporters on the ground for the invasion of Panama (1989), reported from Iraq in late 1990 just before the war began, and covered the 1999 Kosovo war from air bases in Europe.
She has written extensively for The Post about the nation's four regional commanders-in-chief, Army Special Forces training programs overseas, the 1999 Kosovo air war and the Army's peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo.
In 2001, Priest was awarded a prestigious MacArthur Foundation Research and Writing grant. The same year, she won a the Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on the National Defense for her series "The Proconsuls: A Four-Star Foreign Policy?" and the State Department's Excellence in Journalism Award for the same series. She was the guest speaker and host for a four-part speaking series on the U.S. Military and Foreign Policy for the Secretary's Open Forum. She also was a guest scholar in the residence at the U.S. Institute of Peace.
Priest holds a B.A. in political science from the University of California at Santa Cruz. She lives in Washington DC with her husband and two children.

It wouldn't have been deleted if the admin that did so hadn't also agreed it appeared to be a copyright violation. Removing the cut & paste text would have left "William Goodfellow, Goodfellow is Executive Director at the liberal Center for International Policy." 24.17.48.241 22:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU FOR POSTING

Please read WP:AGF in the future, in order to avoid embarassing yourself by writing huge anti-American diatribes accusing me of jingoism!! Thanks. Kade 16:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your opinions

Talk:Foreign hostages in Iraq on the issue of colourizing the text, so that the list is NPOV and people can see very clearly what percentage of hostages have been freed versus killed. I think there's a tendency to assume that they're all being beheaded, whereas in reality it's been four months (until now) with all of them being released and such - colourizing the text ensures that the people who only skim the article, still come away appreciating the percentages killed versus released. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)}

The dark prison

You didn't sign your nomination for {afd}.

Fixed. Thanks for letting me know.

Are you sure you are supposed to both make the nomination and vote? Wouldn't that amount to voting twice?

Yes I'm sure. Voting and nomination are distinct, and many people nominate without voting, but many others do both. A nomination is not a vote. Also, remeber that this isn't even voting exactly, as an admin can review the article and do what they feel is right, even if the voting is 100% for the other course of action, so your concern about ballot stuffing is a bit misplaced.

If you check the guidelines for WP:AFD I think you will find that what you are supposed to do if you think you detect a biased point of view in an article is to bring your concern up on the talk page. What I think you will find you are not supposed to do is nominate that article for deletion.

The main concern I had was Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. My second concern is that I don't think this article meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. My last concern was that the text bordered on PoV, but this was a minor concern compared to 1 and 2. With such a small group of individuals affected by this place, if it exists, it is of course going to be described through their own PoV. Lastly, the benefit of merging these kinds of article into major articles is that many more eyes are on those articles, which allows for much more vetting.

Have a nice day. -- Geo Swan 13:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You too buddy. Please don't be offended that I put this up for AfD. I put up a lot of pages for deleltion and most are deleted quickly. When an article survives an AfD a little notice is put up on its talk page that links to the discussion. Wikipedia is much better because of the AfD process, I'm sure of it. Think of this process as shedding a little light on an article that otherwise might not get the scruitiny that wikipedia needs to stay npov. --Quasipalm 17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your assertion that the article shows a biased point of view. I invite you to be specific, on Talk:The dark prison, about what makes you think the article is biased. -- Geo Swan 13:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical revisionism (Catalunya)

I've posted a lengthy rebuttal to your vote. You might want to take another look at AfD. I've also nominated Historical revisionism (Japan) for deletion on similar grounds.

There are two issues under discussion: first, the appropriateness of the original Catalunya negationism stub; second, the appropriateness of the new title.

If you haven't already followed the citations in the article, the English language links amount to this:

A United Nations resolution condemning Francisco Franco as a fascist.
A timeline of medieval dates.
Another encyclopedia's article on a tangential topic.
A Wikipedia mirror site on a tangential topic.

The author fails to cite any historian or journalistic source for the central argument. Neither title phrase has a Google presence. This violates WP:NOR unless you or someone else sources it appropriately. In that case it probably ought to be merged with a larger article.

Regarding the title change, please see Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (political). The user who suggested this change admitted to not understanding the distinction. I do understand the difference. The end result of using that phrase as a Wikipedia title pattern would be offensive nonsense: academic revisionist historian Hannah Arendt was a holocaust survivor who condemned the Nazi regime. No article should lump her book Eichmann in Jerusalem with neo-Nazi apologetics. Regardless of what happens to the original stub about Catalonia, it should not appear under the new title. Durova 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator i like to explain a little further what lead me to this. I have a POV, it's true, but this was not what lead me to the nomination. In short

Concept Catalan negationism is a total neologism
Even with the proposed renaming, what's going on in Spain under the term Historical Revisionism is a legitimate academical discussion, not related to the implications of Historical Revisionism (Political), and could be managed in the corresponding articles. Durova has explained it better than me.
If you need more info, on the spanish revisionist debate, in my talk page, there are some references and links (all of them in spanish, i'm afraid) to it (search for Pio Moa). I plan to add a subheading in the Spanish Civil War article about it -it's the main bone of contention-, but it will still last a couple of weeks before I have the material in acceptable form (I could send you a draft now, though)
Even the unpropierty of the term is denied, the content of the article has nothing to do with the discussion i'm talking about
Even when the last reason would be denied, I believe I've proved, in the article's talk page that the article has not a single piece of correct information, so is worthless. I confess i was/am infuriated by the content, not because of its POV, but of the piece of s**t it was, from a factual perspective.

My suspicion on slander is POV (i confess), but it was the only thing remaining. I don't know how much you follow spanish politics, but in the bitter debates of lately, one political group has sometimes tried to imply a link between the persons and groups named (and the whole debate) with Holocausts deniers (ironically the journalist cited is one of the most fervent pro-jewish political comentator). This rang my alarm bell reading the wikipedia article, and specially the original catalan entry where this link is explicit.

From my political POV there are worse related articles, f.i. Catalan Countries, but you can see from its history and talk page, that i'm an active and polite (i hope) contributor, as long as we deal with facts or trying to get a NPOV of the question --Wllacer 09:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing POV concerns in {afd} fora

Recently I weighed in, and challenged the introduction of POV issues in several {afd} fora. I have been contributing to the wikipedia for close to a year and a half. I've made something like 4,000 edits, and I have probably started close to a hundred articles. I spent my first year on the wikipedia editing articles related to my interests in the history of science, nautical history, nautical fiction, Canadian geography. Maybe it is simply that these weren't high traffic areas. but I didn't get much experience of nastiness that first year. I didn't get much experience of the {afd} process until September, when I wrote some biographical articles about Guantanamo detainees.

Then I had half a dozen articles nominated for deletion at almost the same time. It was a shocking experience. There are people who spend a lot of time hanging out in the {afd} fora, who have their own, opaque, private jargon -- which they wouldn't explain. User:Jossifresco's explanation for one {afd} nomination was two letters long "nn". That is an outrage. User:Zoe said the topic itself was inherently POV -- inherently "anti-American". I asked her to clarify her comments. She wouldn't explain herself. So far as I am concerned no topic can be "inherently POV". Maybe some topics will require a greater effort to craft compromise wording that is NPOV. But there is absolutely no way I will agree in the wikipedia being transformed into an American hagiography -- where material that reflects poorly on America is proscribed. Both Jossifresco and Zoe are administrators. I would expect them to know better.

Zoe was far from the only person who argued in favor of deleting the articles on the basis that they were POV. Regular frequenters of {afd} fora should remember that for many potential wikipedia contributors is that their first contact with the {afd} procedures will be when an article they started gets nominated for deletion. I don't care how often those regulars have gone through it, they must remain patient, they simply can't be high-handed and refuse to explain these policies, and how they apply to the article in question.

And regulars must follow the policies. POV concerns are not grounds for deletion. Nominators should not start their efforts to deal with a POV concern with an {afd} concern. If they bring up POV issues in their nomination I expect them to start with an assurance that they fully explored dealing with the concern on the article's talk page first.

I expect regulars, who vote on article's deletion to follow the policies, and not base their vote on a POV concern.

There was this one guy who didn't like the topics I was starting articles on, who nominated over half a dozen of them for deletion, based on entirely bogus excuses he couldn't or wouldn't back up. Because of this experience I think all {afd} nominations that violate procedure should be challenged on that ground.

In my experience, abuse of the policies and procedures by partisans, who twist them to advance their own POV, is the most serious challenge to the wikipedia's overall NPOV. I am not saying that the person who nominated the Catalan articles violated the policies out of partisan motives. I am not saying that the person who nominated the dark prison article I started did so out of partisan motives. But they both used POV concern as part of their motives for their nomination. And preventing partisans from abusing the policies means all violations should be challenged. It should no longer be acceptable to use a POV argument to delete an article, unless the nomination assures readers that a full sincere effort to resolve that POV issue was made on the talk pages. -- Geo Swan 14:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Hello, Geo Swan. Let me try and answer all those questions one by one.

I managed the colours quite simply by using the Paint programme. You can generate your own and keep a bitmap image file as a kind of "palette" with various splotches of colour for the "eye dropper" to use, which is what I do. I created it after a couple of other Wikipedians complained that my maps contained jarring colours (I like primaries and secondaries). It's a bit of a pain sometimes, as OMC sometimes leaves little gaps in borders that cause problems when you try to fill in an area with a colour. As far as I know, Wikipedia has no standard map colours. If the colours seem familiar to you, it's likely that you've seen one or two other maps that I've made.

I did not make OMC generate a wider image. The Escarpment map that I made is actually a composite of four OMC maps carefully stitched together, again using Paint. I sometimes find OMC's maps a bit too small, but not always. The little locator maps that I've put at Niagara Peninsula and Bruce Peninsula are quite big enough, for instance.

Some Escarpment data came from here for the parts in Wisconsin, here for the parts in mainland Ontario, and here for the parts in Michigan. The Wisconsin data are a bit spotty, and I had to hand-draw that bit as intelligently as I could, encompassing most of the rock formations on the Door Peninsula and south towards Lake Winnebago. I admit, however, that the stretches on Manitoulin and Cockburn Islands, and the stretch in New York are simply hand-drawn working from satellite photos as I could find no good maps for those places showing the Escarpment with any clarity.

The aforesaid maps I captured using <Alt><SysRq> so that they could become bitmap files on Paint (very handy programme, Paint), and once they were there, it was a painstaking job to remove all extraneous detail (ie everything but the Escarpment). It also helps if you darken the areas that you want to save, but you may need to go over them by hand – in black – if it's a relatively light colour. This is because the next step involves saving the squiggle that you've extracted from the source map as a Monochrome Bitmap, whereupon it becomes black and white, with no shades of grey in between.

Plotting your squiggles on the raw map is also a finicky job. You must recall the Monochrome Bitmap file containing the squiggle, capture it with a <Ctrl><A> <Ctrl><C>, and then call the raw map onto the screen. With a <Ctrl><V>, the squiggle appears, but don't click. You'll probably want to shrink the squiggle to the same scale as the map so that it will fit properly. That's in the Image dialogue box. Good luck with that. I'm afraid it's mostly guesswork, and I have seldom got it right the first time. I almost got the right shrink factor for the Michigan squiggle on this map the first time.

Perhaps I should mention that the Monochrome Bitmaps can first be printed onto the standard, coloured bitmaps in Paint first, which will allow you to give them their final colour (red, in the case of the Escarpment squiggles).

I am sorry if "just plain wrong" came across a bit harsh, but I am afraid that I checked your source, and it seems clear to me that you represented the purple area on the source map. However, according to the text, that area represents areas with Silurian rock deposits, not the escarpment itself, which the map, as confirmed by the text, shows as a red line.

Anyway, I hope all that is helpful. Happy Holidays, and Merry Mapmaking! Kelisi 02:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant this programme. It's at my fingertips on this computer; so I use it. I've become quite deft at manipulating images. Yes, by the way, you're right; my stitching method will only work with Mercator maps. I don't know about that mapmaking project that you mentioned, but I agree it would be a good idea to have readily available maps for Wikipedia, and ones of a better quality than some that we have now. Some aren't bad, but most national maps shown in country articles seem to be those beige detail-free smudges from the CIA. Perhaps the CIA thinks geographical information should only be given out on a need-to-know basis, but I disagree. Kelisi 02:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Meyers

Hi Geo, how you doing? I believe that I have never had the pleasure of writing to you before. You know, I now understand what you've been saying about the images copyright status. I took a better look and realized that that specific image doesn't even mention the doner. It was my mistake to assume that a wallpaper would be P.D. I didn't agree with the fact that the issue should be brought up in a UE nomination, but on the other hand I can understand how it happened. Regardless of the outcome, I'm going to remove that image and replace it with one that has the proper copyright status (to bad, it was a damn good image. Wasn't it?). Tony the Marine 05:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she was a very pretty young woman. I hope you find some PD images that are just as good. -- Geo Swan 13:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Layne Morris

You suggested in a response to one of my posts that the Senior NCO interviewed by CBC News: The Hour may not have been totally honest. Is there any evidence to support your claim? That would be something I ought to relay to the producers.... JTBurman 19:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From The Good Son:

"Sergeant 1st Class Layne Morris didn't expect to be engaged in a firefight that day. His unit received a tip from an Afghan villager who told U.S. forces stationed at Khost that al-Qaeda terrorists were holed up in a compound near the village of Ab Khail. A team of Special Forces soldiers and a local Afghan militia set out to investigate. While they were looking for weapons in the compound, Sgt. Morris received a signal on a global-positioning device indicating there might be another building in the area worth investigating. He set off with five other soldiers and walked the 600 metres to an almost identical compound, where, through the door hinge, he could see five heavily armed Arab men sitting in the inner courtyard. The men ignored Sgt. Morris's entreaties to open the door, and sat with their weapons conferring for about 45 minutes, which was the amount of time it took for Sgt. Morris to call in reinforcements.

"When the backup troops arrived and Pashtu translators began to negotiate with the men inside the compound, they responded with grenades and bullets. Sgt. Morris was wounded in one eye by a grenade and was evacuated by helicopter, but the battle went on for more than four hours, with the five men refusing to give up even as they were being bombed from overhead. When the shooting stopped, Sgt. Speer and four other Special Forces soldiers were ordered to clear the compound -- collect arms and intelligence. When Sgt. Speer and his fellow soldiers entered the bombed-out compound, they weren't expecting to find anyone alive and were caught off guard when Omar, who was wounded from the bombing, and hiding between two mud-brick buildings, threw a grenade at the passing soldiers.

Four hours passed between when Morris was wounded, and evacuated, and when Speer and Khadr were wounded. And yet Morris implies, over and over again, that he was in a position to comment on Khadr's attitude, and professionalism. Speer is reported to have used his paramedic training to help some Afghan children, a few days prior to the skirmish. That sounds like the action of an honorable soldier. I know of no reason to cast doubt on the professionalism and honorability of Morris, prior to his deception in his media interviews. But he has been deceptive in his media interviews. And that is dishonourable. A debilitating wound, like being blinded, does not excuse deception.

Is there some reason you call Sergeant Morris "the Senior NCO"? Do you have any reason to believe he was more senior than Sergeant Speer? They are both Green Berets, aren't they? My impression is that Green Beret squads are all hardened veterans, and that it is not unusual to have squads where all the GIs are NCOs. -- Geo Swan 19:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt 1st class is the first rank that can be appropriately referred to as "Senior NCO." Since he and Speer were of equal rank, Speer was therefore also a Senior NCO. The article you cite, however, suggests that Morris was in command. But since this was published in a major Canadian publication, it is a matter of public record and does not need to be relayed to the producers. Thanks for writing, though. JTBurman 23:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably less confusing to just refer to sergeants as "sergeant".

My interpretation was that Morris was in charge of a squad of half a dozen, with some Afghan allies. He called in reinforcements, which, I presumed, contained the Captain Silver the article mentions. When Silver arrived I presume he took charge. Speer may have been brought in a whole other squad, when reinforcements were called in. -- Geo Swan 00:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]