User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2006-January-to-June

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

Puzzle

NSA eavesdropping copied from Talk:NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#Editorializing has been speedied, which I requested. If you're inclined to work that content into article quality, and to fight for it if it gets AfD'd again, it could come back. I don't want to work on an article that, if accurate, invites the G-men to deliver this line at the doorway of the server room, "We're here to collect the clusters." Metarhyme 05:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Charities accused of ties to terrorism

I just came across the article you created which included the statement: "Other individuals, like Cat Stevens, have been barred from entry to the United States because of the history of their charitable donations." Such accusations need to be cited. Do you have any sources that originally make this claim? Some British newspapers were successfully used for libel for making the same accusations- maybe you had unfortunately heard such statements from them. For more information see Cat Stevens: Denial of entry into the United States. I've removed your statement from the article for now. Definitely let me know if there are sources for it, because it should then be added to the Cat Stevens article. By the way, we don't all have high-speed connections to the internet. Ever considered archiving your talk page? :) Mrtea (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Yusuf Islam Deported to Britain, US Under Fire, Islamonline
2. LARRY KING LIVE: Interview With Yusuf Islam, Formerly Cat Stevens, CNN
3. Terror Watch Listing Diverts Yusuf Islam Flight, Billboard
4. Singer barred U.S. entry over terror links, Washington Times
5. Cat Stevens barred from U.S. over terror links, CTV
6. Yusuf Islam Denied Entry Into Israel, beliefnet
   1. "The man who gained fame as pop star Cat Stevens was denied entry into Israel and deported hours after arriving, officials said Thursday - reportedly because he gave money to a militant Islamic group during his last visit."
7. Associated Press: Former Cat Stevens Barred From Entering U.S., refuseandresist
8. Cat Stevens: I'm Totally Shocked, E online
   1. "U.S. Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle said on Wednesday that Islam was deported due to concern about his activities."
   2. "'Why is he on the watch lists? Because of his activities that could be potentially linked to terrorism. The intelligence community has come into possession of additional information that further raises our concern,' Doyle said, per Reuters."
   3. "In 2000, Islam was barred from Israel, also on suspicion of contributing funds to Hamas. He denied the allegations, and said his contributions were for humanitarian causes."
9. Cat Stevens seeks to clear name, BBC
   1. "He told CNN's Larry King Live he did not support terrorism but charity money could unwittingly go to terror groups."
   2. "'What happens sometimes - [is that] even the Red Cross, Unicef, the World Bank, must have been party to something illicit, but it never knew about it,' he told Larry King."
   3. "'It's impossible for certain things, I suppose, not to happen, but when you're in the business of giving charity you can't let that be a hindrance to making sure that the people who do need it get it.'"
10. Spain charity terror link alleged, CNN
    1. "Muslim Aid, created in London by singer Cat Stevens (now known as Yusuf Islam), which used funds to send mujahadeen fighters to Bosnia."

Thanks very much. I'll work this into the Cat Stevens article where his actual ties to Muslim Aid are lacking. Regarding Charities accused of ties to terrorism, it might be important to mention who is making the accusations. In the intro it mentions the war on terror- if the accusations are all made by the US government we should probably make that evident there as well. Again, thanks for the thorough list, Mrtea (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal Invitation

Greetings, I wanted to personally invite you to consider joining, and contributing to a new WikiProject dealing with modern alleged terrorists - specifically I know you've done a lot of work on those imprisoned at Guantanamo, and would love if you were able to offer that viewpoint, and create a new section for them, to help increase awareness of who they are. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Would love if you could add a "Guantanamo detainees" section to the WikiProject btw, I have no idea where all their bios are on the Wiki and such, but it would be nice to have on the front page Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Guantanamo lawyers

First of all, I know this is a very long reply but please bear with me.

I think you may have misunderstood my intentions with my merge requests. You can see on my user page that I am no fan of GW Bush, and I certainly have no intention of burying any information. While it is possible that more information may arise about Fred Borch, it is unlikely that it will ever be enough to warrant a full article on him. At this point, the Guantanamo article is short enough that any related information on the prosecution team can be easily added to that article.

Keeping all of this information in one place actually makes it easier to spread the information; most users do not want to have to click on every link in the main article just to find out small bits of information about each of the prosecutors. For example, if you look at the article on the Iran-Contra Affair you will see that the people who have their own articles are senators, congressmen, journalists, and other key figures. The individual lawyers do not. This helps keep the information from being spread too thin.

These individual articles only link to Guantanamo and each other. The only reason I found them at all was because I am trying to reduce the number of military stubs so I was going through the list. You are the only one who has contributed to them at all, because nobody else can find them.

What I propose is a separate section on the Guantanamo military commissions page that discusses the controversy surrounding the prosecution team. We can keep all of the external links you have here and all of the information you have on the individual articles. Nothing needs to be removed, as far as I can tell. You've done a lot of good research. It will just be easier for people to see if they can read it on the main article. Kafziel 14:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds good. Maybe by creating a section on the Guantanamo page that directs people to look at the related pages, we can get some more info on them and expand the stubs. Let's see how that goes. Kafziel 16:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm so embarrassed

over the edit you made to Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. Not only did I miss the bit about the training centre but after following the link at the bottom of the newspaper article it got worse. It turns out the government is planning to pave the runway at the very airport where I work and I missed that as well. Too much editing Wikipedia to pay attention to the world. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

First Lord of the Admiralty

To answer your two questions:

Firstly, I agree that the office itself merits its own article. But at the time the redirection was created, all it had was (if I recall correctly) a list that was duplicated elsewhere. Nothing is stopping anyone from creating a new article on the subject.

Secondly, a link to the list of incumbents (now) appears at the bottom of the Admiralty page. -- Emsworth

Kitchen Knives/High Carbon Stainless Steel

Hey, thanks a lot for your comments on the article User:Ctdunstan/Kitchen knife I am working on. I have no real knowledge of metallurgy, so I am approaching it from the standpoint of a cook. I have done some research and some web searches and come up with the following:

A number of knife manufacturers offer knives made from High Carbon Stainless Steel:

• Wusthof
• Henckels (and their lower end)
• Kershaw (click on "Kitchen Cutlery" then anything other than "Shun")
• Messermeister
• Furi
• Sabatier
• Cutco
• Global is also said to use the material (though I am unable to find an official site)

Additionally, independent retail outlets sell many of these same knives, advertised with the same material [1]. Knife reviewing or information sites also mention the material:

• Hormel
• Martha Stewart
• Chef's Outlet (and a second article)

I think the distinction is not that High Carbon Stainless Steel has more carbon than Carbon Steel, but rather that it has added stainless properties (chromium, molybdenum, and vanadium, I guess). Likewise, the difference between Stainless Steel and High Carbon Stainless Steel would apparently be that the latter has more carbon, making it harder. The discussion in Knife#Materials leads me to believe this may be the case, as it describes numerous materials with varying amounts of other elements in them. Additionally, it is mentioned in Chef's knife that knives typically have 2% carbon, which is at odds with the A Cook's Wares source.

Lastly, what is most important in the article is that it helps people understand what related terms mean. While you may be correct from a metallurgy standpoint (as I said, I have little knowledge in this field), it cannot be denied that this material is advertised and the article should help people to understand what that means. I can say from experience that knives labeled "High Carbon Stainless Steel" are quite different from those labeled "Carbon Steel" or "Stainless Steel", as I have a number of knives of each type.

Thank you again for your comments, I would like to hear back on what you think about this. Sorry if I got a little carried away citing things there, it's a little late and I'm pretty bored. I would like to hear any additional feedback you have about the article as well. Thanks again! -- Chris 11:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:CarolynWood.jpg

Hi Geo Swan. I've checked through the history for this image. It was uploaded on 21 Nov by User:Whosyourdaddy with no source but a claim of public domain. On 27 Nov, the same user changed this to website screen shot fair use, but still with no source. A source was added that same day by 24.86.172.42. This was then changed by User:Bkell to "no copyright status" on 31 Dec, and a message was added to the original uploader's page to explain that this the incorrect tag had been added. So yes, although this probably was fine use as fair use for a film screenshot, it was tagged as a website screenshot which was incorrect. No-one updated the image with the correct tag, it was then deleted as part of the backlog clear-up. Hope that helps - if you upload a new image and have any questions about tagging it, let me know. Regards, CLW 15:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag on "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter"

You're right. I should have explained it. –Shoaler (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Omra

Hello Geo Swan. You created the page Omra. Did you mean Umrah ? Also, can you explain what relevance the external link on that page has to the Umrah (if that is what you meant). Thanks. MP (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

United States Congress contributions

I see you were involved in interactions with several editors from the United States Congress and had personal experience in dealing with them. Their behavior is now up for comment by the rest of the community. Can you please certify this RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress? Thanks. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 11:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Good Shepherd (novel) cleanup

I didn't leave a note on the talk page, but I did leave a note in a hidden HTML comment on the page itself. Not the best place to put it, as has been shown, it can easily be overlooked. I added my explanation to the talk page. Qutezuce 05:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/The Mauritius Command temp

Hi, if you would like to have a look at this it is very much "work in progress". This is the kind of direction "i think" the novel articles should go. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Now in place as The Mauritius Command also reference made fros the series article and detail issues like publications removed from the series article. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq

Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And hello from Berlin to Toronto by the way. Studied at UofT for a year. Great people, great city, great country! Get-back-world-respect 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 02:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlawful combatant

If you look through the edit history of Unlawful combatant you will see that I have edited the enemy combatant repeatedly to be "illegal enemy combatant". At the moment I am busy with several other disputes so I have put this one on the backburner. I am not going to be looking at Wikipedia pages for the first few days of this week. I will give this some though while I am away and let you know what I think when I return. However at the moment I would tend to think that your idea is sound but that "enemy combatant" only needs to be a disambiguation page to help sort out the mares nest. eg

An enemy combatant can be:

• a lawful combatant who fights withing the laws of war;
• an unlawful combatant of an (illegal combatant) when the fight outside the laws of war for example when "an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property"(ex parte Quirin).

Since 9/11 the Bush Administration has used the term "enemy combatant" as a short hand for "illegal enemy combatant".

template:disambiguation

Is that the type of thing you were thinking about? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But if you want to do it there is at least one person who will not be happy with it. "ex parte Quirin" can be used as a source as in the quote above to justify it, but I think to be safe you should look for at least one none US source. As you said on my talk page the phrase has been spun by the administration early on they used to say "illegal enemy combatant" which since the military started their "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" the term has been shortened to "enemy combatant" by definition:

"Summary of Evidense for Combatant Status Review Tribunal - Detainee Begg, Moazzam"

...

2. An enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces."

But looking around I have found the source which although US, I think will cover you needs you need: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1076.IH:

"(8) The term `enemy combatant' has historically referred to all of the citizens of a state with which the Nation is at war, and who are members of the armed force of that enemy state. Enemy combatants in the present conflict, however, come from many nations, wear no uniforms, and use unconventional weapons. Enemy combatants in the war on terrorism are not defined by simple, readily apparent criteria, such as citizenship or military uniform. And the power to name a citizen as an `enemy combatant' is therefore extraordinarily broad."

Talk about Through the Looking-Glass "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less". --Philip Baird Shearer 00:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The Good Shepherd

I'd just like to thank you for cleaning up my sloppy editing, as you've probably guessed I'm somewhat new to this. The connection between the book and the movie was also my mistake, a result of not reading very carefully. Zadkiel 02:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

DFO image copyright

Interesting... The BIO and Canadian Coast Guard College images were uploaded many moons ago and I hadn't really been keeping up to date with the evolution of Wikipedia's image copyright policy. I assumed that this copyright notice (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/copyright/copyright_e.htm) covered all the CCG images and the one in question of BIO (which is a joint DFO/NRCan/Env. Can./DND facility). Plasma east 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Charities accused of ties to terrorism

Sorry to bring this up again, but I think it's about time you referenced all of the accusations made in the article you created. Maybe adding another column saying who made the accusations in the first place will clarify things for the reader as well. Please confirm that you intend on citing your sources so I don't have to worry about it. :) Also, please seriously consider archiving your talk page. Regards, Mrtea (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Embedded Links

Leaving aside the fact that the BBC do not delete pages, or alter their URLs, could you explain to me exactly why so-called "embedded" links "suck"? BBC URLs do not "expire" but even if they did it's easy enough to find out which site the link is from. 82.13.187.1 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Go Pick On Someone Your Own Size

Stop picking on people else I'm going to tell my mommy on you. -Puss'nPurpleBoots 13:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I AM NOT YOUR MOMMY! Anyway Puss'nPurpleBoots checked out to be a sockpuppet. Blocked them both for 24 hours. Fred Bauder 01:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"IAM NOT YOUR MOMMY!" could be construed as a personal attack. You two should both pick on someone your own age for a change. -Young People 15:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry

Re: interventions since 1945 Hi, I shortened the entry--trying to keep the entries to 1 sentence only to avoid revert wars. See the talk page. Sorry, My mistake if I got the details wrong. Travb 06:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Anonymous posting from US Congress computers...

That's exactly right. Even if you have an account, you can't post if your IP address is blocked. That's what happens to me sometimes at the office. I didn't know it until it happened to me. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 13:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hicks

Good point. I'll respond on the Hicks talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert War

Since you dislike me and the subject matter which you write about i.e. Paul Bremer, you'd really like this one A Journalist's Beef with Bremer. Too bad I can no longer use my former alias User:Ariele because one of Wiki's Sysops swooped my account up and changed the password AND even put a page protected lock on the user page. Now the Ariele user page is total none-sense. ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

News alert

You damn well better believe I expect you to take care of this, for Wikipedia!, let's get some more articles :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 05:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Coast Guard

Thanks to User:Denniss, almost all of the images on this page'll be gone in a few weeks. Do you have experience with image licenses and whatnot? (I saw your comments on his talk page). I'd like to have these images saved, if possible. Maybe someone with expertise in image usage restrictions could sort the thing out. Ouuplas 05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's too bad, I still think he's removing those images on a small technicality, I really don't think anyone could ever get in trouble for using them. I live in Halifax, Nova Scotia, maybe if I'm around one of the Coast Guard stations some time soon I could take a few pictures and upload them here. Thanks, Ouuplas 16:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Could we use this template to save them?

Ouuplas 05:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the DFO and the DND also place a requirement on those who download their images that they make sure that if they re-use them on their site that their users don't use them for commercial purposes.

My cousin lives near Parry Sound, and has some pictures of the Griffon and Samuel Risley, which I believe he will release to us. Unless DFO changes their liscence, I think we will have to rely on volunteers, or images taken by USN personnel. -- Geo Swan 07:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Combatant Status Review Tribunal

Actually, I added the template on behalf of User:Nescio, who had added a generic cleanup and explained that he found the article "chaotic". It seemed pretty understandable to me. Deltabeignet 06:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Denbeaux study

Hello there - It's not apparent why that study is notable enough to warrant an article of its own. Have you considered merging it to List of Guantánamo Bay detainees, referencing it as a source? Greetings, Sandstein 08:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

wikidates

Check the manual of style about dates: This was the topic of much debate in past years. Wikilinking standalone dates with no other context is frowned on unless the links leads to something that is likely to add to the understanding of the article. Going to, say, 1987 in an article about a rock band isn't going to tell you anything more about the rock band. Going to 1987 in music, on the other hand, might. Similarly, linking dates of the year (e.g., March 3) is a useless link - with a few exceptions, such as birth dates and death dates (because then you can see who else was born/died on that day of the year). - DavidWBrooks 23:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the MOS does support my edits. Read the very next sentence: So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. The links I removed added nothing to the content, IMHO - the reader could find nothing new, nothing of relevance, by following them. The type of formatting is irrelevant here - it's the fact that they were linked at all in those contexts. - DavidWBrooks 03:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So, for example, the year links in this article Tom Terrific are useful because they go to "the year in television"; you can see what else was on TV then. But the year links in the initial graf of GEnie add nothing to the reader - they just take you to the entire year article, where the odds of finding something relevant to GEnie or ISPs or the Internet is so slim it's irrelevant. - DavidWBrooks 03:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point now. Yes, you are correct - I must have gone overboard on a cleanup frenzy and unlinked full dates. Sorry to have argued in error; I misunderstood.

Personally, I dislike those links too, because they solve one problem (inconsistent date styles) by creating a bigger (IMHO) problem: distracting bits of blue (depending on which skin you have) that doesn't add anything to the reader's comprehension. Links are so vital to wikipedia's usefullness that it's a shame to squander them. But I bow to the majority consensus. - DavidWBrooks 13:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been around wikipedia long enough - more than 3 years now - that I remember when red links were the norm, and we all urged each other to make more red links because that was the easiest way to get people to create new articles. Now you could wikilink half the words in any article to existing articles! The problem, IMHO, is that a good wikilink should jump out and makes you think "hey, I don't understand that concept and would like to learn more" - but if there are too many links in an article, the interesting links get lost in the visual noise. - DavidWBrooks 16:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, one last comment: I just stumbled on a wonderful example of bad over-wikilinking: User:EdRooney.- DavidWBrooks 16:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Evergreen Line

From what I hear the Evergreen Line will be a truly rapid transit system in that will be on a dedicated right-of-way and will have signal priority. For the TTC streetcar I think only the Harbourfront LRT is actually dedicated and has priority at intersections. However, you are right for it will change the length. Vancouver's system would be at around 80 km. The Toronto Subway and Scarborough RT are at 70 km right now. With the Spadina and St. Clair I guess it will be over 80km so I guess Toronto's will still be the longest--Lee_Haber8 20:49 March 5 2006

Jabran Said bin al Qahtani's interrogation log

I am pretty sure that the interrogation log Time magazine hosts is that of Mohamed al-Qahtani, not Jabran Said bin al Qahtani. -- Geo Swan 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for warning me, you're absolutely correct. I've updated both articles. -- Ze miguel 09:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Congrats Message

Hi Geo, thanks for your message. Nice to hear from you again, how are things? And yes, matters seemed to eventually die a death some time ago and hopefully are firmly in the past. If you need any administrative assistance I would be delighted to help out. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

US mil stubs

Had a question about the guys at Gitmo that you are creating article about. I have been trying to clean up the {{US-mil-stub}} category for sometime now and I see these guys keep popping up. While the US military is holding them they should not have that stub attached to their articles. That would be the equivalent of having Allied POWs from WWII listed under the German Army. It just doesn't make sense. I would suggest proposing a new stub at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. What exactly to call it I don't know. Hopefully you have no problems with this. I won't start deleting them until I get a yeah or nea from you. Cheers--Looper5920 08:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not going to argue the politics of it with you. Just glad we agree. I'll switch them over now while I have some time. Cheers--Looper5920 09:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Carolyn Wood image

Hello. I am sorry if I didn't follow the proper procedure. I was not aware that there is a tag that is supposed to be put in captions for images with unknown licensing—this is the first time I've heard of such a thing. In the future I will try to find this tag.

I wouldn't have removed a {{tv-screenshot}} tag from an image. The images I was working on were marked with {{web-screenshot}}, which is for screenshots of Web pages, not images that happened to come from Web pages. From your description of the image, it sounds like I was right in removing a {{web-screenshot}} tag from this image, if it came from a television program.

The image shouldn't have been removed four days later; there should have been a period of at least a week before it was removed. To be honest, I was working with a lot of images in that period, so I didn't pay attention to what happened to this particular image after I placed the tag on its description page and notified the uploader.

I would agree that the administrator who deleted the image should have made sure that proper procedure was followed, and if I did something wrong I would have appreciated someone telling me so.

I am under the impression that deleted images might still be around somewhere, hidden away, in case they were deleted accidentally. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm right, then it might be possible to get that image back.

Good luck, and I'm sorry for any headaches I've caused. —Bkell 15:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

CCGS Sir Wilfrid Laurier

I've expanded your article a fair bit (well, I merged another article I wrote, I didn't see the syntax or it on the disambig page), let me know if you have any suggestions. Cheers -- Tawker 07:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Carolyn Wood Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Carolyn Wood]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaquin Murietta (talk • contribs)

Charities with ties to terrorism

User:KI renamed [[charities accused of ties to terrorism]] to [[charities tied to terrorism]]. I noticed this rename almost right away. Another user changed the article back to its original name 24 minutes later. Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism disappeared, presumably because of these renames.

I thought that KI was responsible. I left him a note. I think I was civil, under the circumstances.

They removed my comment, from their talk page. It is their talk page, so, or course, they are entitled to remove my comment. They removed it with the edit summary "rv flaming by Geo Swan."

However, I am going to respond here, with a simple pointer on User Talk:KI. -- Geo Swan 19:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem confused... talk pages are not lost... Please see Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Your incivility seems to stem from your passionate feelings regarding the War on Terror. You also seem to have gotten the idea that I feel strongly about this one way or the other. I don't. My move was according to Wikipedia naming conventions. In the future I hope you will be more civil. KI 16:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe I was civil.

FWIW, I do not believe I am confused. The discussion you found on Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism was placed -subsequent- to today's renamings. The previous discussion really is gone.

You say your rename was following a wiki naming policy? I am curious as to what wiki naming policy that would be.

If the other wikipedia contributor's rename was not in compliance with policy, then they are the person who should be held responsible. But, I do believe their rename was in compliance with policy. Let me try to phrase this in the most civil way I can. Someone made a serious mistake. And, unless you cite that policy, and I agree with your interpretation, I am going to think you were the one who behaved irresponsibly.

If you take a closer look at Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism you will see that another contributor is concerned that the existing title is POV -- in the opposite direction of your concern. If you can think that [[charities tied to terrorism]] is the NPOV title, and they can think that something less accusatory than [[charities accused of ties to terrorism]] is necessary, then surely you must agree that your rename was not such an obvious choice that it would have acheived consensus, if there had been a discussion.

KI, we sign in so we can be held accountable for the choices we make in editing. Being civil, and assuming good faith, are critical components in establishing and maintaining the wikipedia's credibility and distinguishing it from partisan blogs. But holding one another accountable for following our other policies and procedures are also critical components in maintaining the wikipedia's credibility.

I don't think it matters how strongly you or I feel about the articles we edit, we should remain as accountable to the rest of the community without regard to the power of the strength of our feelings. I wouldn't ask for, or accept, having edits I made that didn't follow procedures given a pass, because others figured I felt strongly about issues associated with an article. And I wouldn't ask for or accept my counter-policy edits overlooked because others figured I didn't care about the issues associated with an article. I value the wikipedia, and the reputation it is building for reliability. I do my best to maintain an NPOV when I work on articles connected with issues I feel strongly about. And I count on other editors to give me a civil, specific heads-up if they think I fell short of maintaining that NPOV. Sometimes they convince me. Other times they don't.

There have been a number of instances, maybe a dozen, where I have referred to the "Bush administration policies", on detainees, or some other aspect of the GWOT, where someome has edited this to read "US government policies", with an edit summary saying they were correcting a biased POV. And I have explained, in those instances, that I thought that the wording "US government policies" was the more biased wording. The reasoning I offered was that the US government has three branches, executive, legislative and judicial. The three branches have overlapping duties and responsibilities, that are supposed to balance out, prevent a tyranny by one branch. I have pointed out that some aspects of the Bush administration's policies on detainees has been challenged, or over-ruled by the other two branches.

KI, you say you don't feel strongly about issues connected with the war on terror. I don't think that matters. I don't think a lack of interest in an article excuses you from being asked to account for your edits. Maybe that is not what you meant. But it is what it looks like you meant. -- Geo Swan 19:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Policies? WP:NPA for starters. KI 20:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please explain this further. Are you citing WP:NPA as your justification for renaming that article? If so please explain how renaming charities accused of ties to terrorism to charities tied to terrorism falls under the policy of no personal attacks. You said your renaming was in accordance with wiki naming policies. If you are correct I welcome learning about this wrinkle in naming policies I am unaware of.

If you are citing WP:NPA because you think I have attacked you, then I think we have a misunderstanding.

• Do you agree that wikipedia contributors should follow the wikipedia policies and procedures?
• Do you agree that we should call on one another to explain when we think another editor has made a mistake?
• Do you think we should be civil with one another? So do I. I am just taking a look at my first note, on your talk page, trying to plumb whether there is something I wrote without realizing it might have seemed like a personal attack to you. Maybe I should have said I thought you -misinterpreted- the WP:BOLD#...but don't be reckless! policy, rather than saying you abused it. If so, let me take that word back.
• I still think you acted recklessly however. -- Geo Swan 23:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Copyright status of images on user pages

Rather than clutter up an already long DRV discussion with this interesting tangent, I'm going to attempt to answer it here.

Let me start with the opinion that this is a very technical issue of copyright law and the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer. As an educated amateur, however, I believe that the "fair use" exemption in the copyright law is a limited exemption. It is a right granted us as user/authors that is entirely dependent on the context of the use. The fair use exemption does allow limited use of copyrighted material if it serves an educational purpose. For the most part, I believe that we can easily defend encyclopedia articles as having education as their primary goal.

User pages are provided for the broad purpose of advancing the project. Sometimes, that is very direct - for example, when one uses a user sub-page to create a temporary version of an article in peace before publishing it as a "finished" article. Other times it is less direct - for example, when we use each other's Talk pages for person-to-person conversation about an article. When we discuss the overall workings of the encyclopedia (for example, a meta-discussion such as this one), we are yet further removed from the immediate educational value of the copyrighted content. When you get out to the interpretation that userpages help use to understand of each other better, you are quite far removed from the immediate educational value.

To me, it is entirely a matter of context. Hmmm... I'm not sure that my explanation is working very well yet. Let me see if I can explain better by example. A copyrighted image used:

1. in an article about the image itself - allowed. The example that jumps to mind is General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon (though that example's no longer as clear since the article appears to have been merged with another article now). The image itself was the subject of significant moral and legal discussion.
2. on the the actual image page - defensible as necessary for the mechanical workings of the webserver
3. in an article that is directly relevant (for example, the same image in the article about Nguyen Ngoc Loan) - generally allowed as long as no equivalent public image is available. (Other limitations also apply.)
4. in a temp page that will become a relevant article - again, generally allowed
5. in a Talk page where the discussion participants were actively debating which image should be used in the article - probably allowed
6. in a meta discussion like this one - probably not allowed
7. in a generalized statement of user opinion or background - not allowed. It's just too far removed from the prospective article reader's educational experience. The user page does not meet the standard of being primarily intended for the reader's immediate education.
8. in an article about some non-relevant topic like, say, pulleys - clearly not allowed.

If you really want to go into it more, I recommend posting your question at the Village Pump. The foundation has a number of lawyers who have expertise on the finer points of copyright law and could give you a more precise answer. I hope that clarifies my position, though. Rossami (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the long, interesting reply.

I am replacing your bullets with numbers, so I can refer to them more easily. Briefly I think I already agreed with most of them, or you convinced me. Maybe, at some future date, I will take your advice and look for legal answers to the finer points of law on image copyrights at the Village Pump. Right now however I have some remaining questions of you and your positions on ROGNN's pages.

How are those of us who are considering whether the pages should be undeleted to know that ROGNN use of the images was not an instance of your fourth class? It seems to me that, if his use of the images was not an instance of your fourth class, he should have been given a heads-up. There should be a record of that. If he was not warned then I think that any speedy deletion was extremely premature.

Regarding your 6th class -- you say the present undeletion discussion is an instance where the images in question do not belong -- "since we are able to be completely clear by referring to the image without necessarily including it on the page." -- news to me as I have no idea which images we are talking about. There is no link to the images in the discussion that I can see.

Patrolling for improperly liscenced images is important. I am aware some wikipedia contributors are labeling images they upload with liscenses they do not qualify for. And sometimes they are relabeling images they like, that are slated for deletion, with bogus liscenses. That is bad.

I think that I have found some of the wikipedia contributors who have volunteered for image copyright patrol are not themselves following procedure in the way they delete images. In particular they are not placing {unverifiedimage} tags on every instance where those images were used. Sometimes they aren't even placing a tag on the image to be deleted. I raised this concern a couple of weeks ago. No response from those on image patrol yet however. -- Geo Swan 19:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Good points about the problems of image licensing and of our patrolling for bad licenses. Any help you can provide to keep us on the straight-and-narrow is well appreciated.

One point of clarification. In my "6th class" example, I was referring not to the DRV discussion but to this discussion here on your Talk page. Neither of us needed to actually include Image:Nguyen.jpg on the page to understand the discussion that the two of us are having. Sorry that I was unclear.

Regarding your question about how non-admins can see and verify that the deleted user-page was not an attempt to eventually create a user page, the easiest way is to ask an admin you trust to look at the page and report on it. (I can tell you that I did review the page and there is no possibility it could ever have become an article.) The slightly harder approach is to request a temporary undeletion just for the purpose of reviewing the content. This process takes several steps. The admin must undelete the article, then blank the page, replacing it with {{deletedpage}} or some variation, then protect the blanked page. You, as a reviewer, can then see the deleted content by checking the page's history but the various mirrors are unable to pick up the deleted content during the review period. The protection prevents partisans from reverting the page to an unblanked version. And then, after a reasonable period, the admin remember to go back and re-delete the page. It's a lot of extra steps so it's not done lightly. It is most often done when the case is a judgment call.

As to whether he should have been warned about it... It would have been courteous but it's not required. The project has had so much trouble with deliberately inflammatory and divisive userboxes that a fairly firm rule has been established against them. Furthermore, the controversy was recent enough and ugly enough that many people are still reacting quite strongly. And in fairness, anyone experienced enough to create a userbox must have heard about the issue by now. I would have trouble crediting the argument that this user was unaware of the policy. Based on the user's edit history, it did appear to be a deliberate attempt to provoke. I'm really trying to give him/her the benefit of doubt but it's difficult in this case.

Thanks again for your help on the image-patrol. Rossami (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Village Pump

So, my first attempt to use the Village Pump ended up in the wrong place? Do you have any interest in recommending the correct location to raise my concern? -- Geo Swan 19:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably either Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): the page you put it on is the talk page for discussions about the Village Pump. Sometimes when I find things like this, I move them myself to the appropriate location, leaving a note where I'm moving them from; in this case, I had no idea this was you first attempt to use the VP, and thought you might have meant it to be where it was, and the reason for its placement was just escaping me. - Jmabel | Talk 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA's

In answer to your edit summary, yes you have to manually update the vote totals, perhaps if m:ParserFunctions get added per a current proposal we can make it automagic. But don't worry if you haven't, the next person usually catches it. You sure did some homework on your responses Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KI 2. If you have a lot more to add, you may want to put it on the discussion page, while leaving a summary of the statements and a link to it on the main page. Thanks! — xaosflux ^Talk 13:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll on Charities

Hello Geo Swan, wanted to get your opinion on a straw poll for an article title change now setup over at Talk:Charities_accused_of_ties_to_terrorism. Thanks! Netscott 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Geo Swan, I am impressed. You added what is essentially a long, well written, extensive, detailed, and yet balanced article to that talk page. If you ever want support for an adminship or anything like that, drop me a note, and I will give it wholeheartedly. GRuban 19:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Last chance

You and I both know your last edit to my RFA was far from civil. Remove the "questions" today and I wont start an RFC. I have tried to reason with you, yet you continue your incivility. I neither know nor care what your motive is. I have already wasted too much time with this nonsense. KI 17:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mohamedou Ould Slahi

Odd—a very versatile word, indeed. I labelled the edit I reverted as odd for a few reasons. It was an anonymous editor. By no means odd in itself but coupled with the rest it does make it somewhat more difficult to rely upon. Its writing was completely unformatted, and looked to be on the paragraphing level of news sources, not encyclopedic ones. That leads me to question if it was a copyvio (since it wasn't sourced) and also makes me wary about using quotes from unsourced material. Googling the exact quotes failed to come up with any results (other than wikipedia) for the ones I tried. That was my reasoning... and that the article is better without it. If we found a good source for it all it is likely relevant to this person and should be kept. I don't randomly go around removing chunks... it just tends to be that unwikified, unsourced, inserts by anonymous editors with not very many edits tend to lack many stylistic attributes and if I could have found some source directly related to that text, through googling, I would have linked to that news source in external links and removed all of the text and given a one or two sentence summary. I didn't find a source to link to so I didn't get to do that and felt it was best to remove it all. gren グレン 13:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

John Batiste

If you can put some encyclopaedic facts about him in the article, then remove the speedy tag. As it stands, being "yet another US officer" is not encyclopaedic neither - IMO - is objecting to Donald Rumsfeld. What has he done to make him notable?

Whilst I agree in principle with the the policy about allowing folk time to get an article formed well before speedying it, it isn't actually practical. When browsing through the new pages list, what is listed is "New pages" and if they aren't up to scratch they need a flag there and then - maybe I have put the wrong flag on it, but at least this way others will come across the article and can decide "Yes it is not notable - delete" or "It has been improved into a good article - remove the tag". Please don't be offended, please just improve the article and then remove the tag. -- SGBailey 08:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your reply (User_talk:SGBailey) ...

Can you in that case suggest a better tag to put on the page? It is wrong to do nothing and it is not viable to wait for (say) an hour before tagging the page. I suppose I could put {cleanup} on the page - but that also is wrong. What I need then is a tag which says "If this page doesn't get improved then it may be a candidate for deletion but let the author have a while to sort it out first" in a way that lets others know that the page needs reviewing later.

BTW, the John Batiste page now has lots of external references and verification but it still doesn't have any content that makes the chap - whoever he is - notable. An article about (say) Fred Smith stating that he is a soldier who disagreed with Eisenhower doesn't make Fred Smith notable. Has John Batiste done anything notable? -- SGBailey 18:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

An hour? Do you really think that is long enough? In the interest of complete candor, however, let me remind you that, in the case of the John Batiste article, you didn't wait an hour. You waited less than ten minutes before you applied the tag.

• What is the downside to waiting three hours, six hours, 24 hours? You say it is "not viable" to wait? I don't see that. You will have to explain this further for me.
  • What I can't help wondering is whether what you describe as "not viable" is merely inconvenient. If you are going to patrol the new articles, what stops you from opening a file, let's say, [[User:SGBailey/check later/April 16 2006]], and pasting in the names of the new articles you think should be tagged, if improvements aren't made.
  • What prevents the creation of a tag named something like {{checkback24}}, which you could apply to an article, which would place it in a category of articles that someone has committed to return to later? Maybe it could be instantiated thus: {{checkback24 | [[WP:BIO]] }} Yes, this suggestion, and the one above, are more work than what you did. But they are not a lot more work -- and what you did doesn't follow the guidelines.
  • Let me repeat that ten minutes isn't nearly long enough. IMO one hour isn't nearly long enough. You start an article, then you realize it is more complicated than you thought at first. You realize you need to look harder for references you thought would be easy to track down. That could take an hour. That could take severl hours. -- Geo Swan 10:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah -- about your repeated assertions that Batiste is not notable -- let me direct your attention to the lead sentence in this Washington Post article:

• "The calls by a growing number of recently retired generals for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have created the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951."
• The most serious confrontation since Truman and MacArthur? Are you really going to insist that you don't think that is notable?
• You are the one who volunteers for new article deletion patrol, and I am not. So, forgive me if I am not up to date -- but hasn't your application of a tag like {nn-bio}, which implies a wikipedia:speedy deletion, been deprecated? Isn't the use of the {prod} tag the recommended replacement for cases like this? -- Geo Swan 11:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop spamming

Stop. I'm about to post the RFC. You're just making your case look worse and worse. KI 17:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Folks, please, it's not worth it. Thank Ghu it's about to be over. You do both realize it's academic, right? At 10/17/7, I'm surprised Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/KI_2 wasn't closed early under WP:SNOW. It's worth just stopping. BTW, if there is an RFC filed, could I be informed to make a comment? --GRuban 18:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan KI 20:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

==Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan==

Oh, my. I hope my asking to be notified if there was an RFC didn't bring it into being. Please, de-escalate, sheathe your weapons, return your bombers to the launch bays. It's over. Please. KI, please go edit Chad articles, I've read some you've written, they're quite well done, and as a WP:CSD member, I'm quite happy that someone is editing them, we need more articles on the third world. But please stop the litigation, it's simply not constructive. You want GS to leave you alone? I'm sure he will, as your RFA expires today. Done. No more. Please. Peace. -- GRuban 21:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The RFC against you

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan has been deleted because it was not endorsed by two users within 48 hours of its creation. You may, if you wish, request the page to be restored and moved to your userspace. If you would like this, just leave a note on my talk page. Stifle (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would like it moved to my user space.

Will you put it under something like: User:Geo Swan/RfC 2006-4-17?

Thanks. -- Geo Swan 01:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Return.

Hi, Let me know when if you are still interested in the Transwiki effort you mentioned. Folajimi 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hatchet burying

I'm fine with letting the antagonism between us subside, but I'd like to point out User talk:Splash and Wikipedia:Deletion review->History only undeletion. There never was a talkpage for Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Just an FYI I got from Splash, KI 02:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Puss'nPurpleBoots

Oh, thanks. Sorry, I was just messaging people who might join my committee, The Wikipedia Cat Lovers' Committee. Well, here goes:

Geo Swan/archive/2006-January-to-June, would you be interested in joining the Wikipedia Cat Lovers' Committee?

If you want to join, you can add yourself to the members list, and contact me, Sergeant Snopake, on my talk page, or the committee founder, GeorgeMoney, on his.

The Wikipedia Cat Lover's Committee has also been nominated for deletion.

Whether you join or not, please could you comment on the deletion page to help keep the committee going.

Please vote keep.

Thank You very much! :)

Sergeant Snopake, 15:53, 21th of April 2006 (UTC)
I don't hold out much hope, but it's worth a shot.

Re:admonishment?

I'll begin by saying that your argument that SwatJester objected to was a textbook case of original research; we do not extrapolate on what information is available (and drawing conclusions of our own from information in the news is extrapolating). Now, SwatJester was not polite in his statement, but he was speaking of meaningful policy, as NPOV applies when original research causes an article to appear to have political bias. Differing interpretations of policy when both interpretations are valid should probably not be used as a reason to oppose. I'm not one to force this sort of thing on anyone, and I don't think that your statement amounted to a personal attack, but I would like to remind you to lay aside your own biases when evaluating an adminship candidate. If saying that is admonishing you, then I am doing so. For what it's worth, I think that there are CIA black sites, and I opposed SwatJester's nomination for adminship. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 26 April 2006 @ 03:44 UTC

But its a direct quote...

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware it was a quote (actually, I can't really make this up from the text), but if in the original text the word Holland was used then I agree that it shouldn't be changed. Umless the original contained the Netherlands or an equivalent that was wrongly translated with Holland. Fnorp 06:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cellucci Explanation

GeoSwan, I have posted a response to your request on the Paul Cellucci Discussion page. --Gopple 18:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Abdul Qadir (Afghan Leader)

• Sorry about the confusion. I should have looked at the history and it would have been good to have information about the other article in the nomination. I have speedy deleted it now so the article space is free to move the other article. Capitalistroadster 18:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I did read it. I misunderstood the discussion. My apologies. I'd be happy to delete the article for you now, but fortunately it seems Capitalistroadster already has (he's a good chap). As for removing the templates and {{hangon}}, erm, no, that's not what we're supposed to do. {{hangon}} exists for the authors of articles, who aren't allowed to remove the speedy deletion tag — there's no rule against speedy deletion patrollers like myself from removing the tag: it's our job to either remove the tag or delete the page. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ooops

About Abdul Salaam, I meant to put a cleanup tag on it. In my opinion it has way too little text in sentence form. Also, the allegations section is a bit confusing. While it is a good start with great info, it needs more "meat", in my opinion, to be a true article. Good luck with it! American Patriot 1776 02:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Guantanemo

		The Current Events Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this Current Events barnstar owing to the excellent work you have done in creating and maintaining the articles on the now named prisoners in Cuba! Irishpunktom\talk 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan. I just wanted to second this kudos for your work on the Gitmo detainees, and make a suggestion if I could. It might be effective to consolidate the available information on individual detainees into pages with multiple entries. Something like, "Guantanamo detainees who are Egyptian nationals", for example, that will have the info on all those detainees. Just a suggestion. The main thing is getting the information out there, putting names with the numbers! Great work! -Fsotrain09 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Iceberg nasa.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Iceberg nasa.jpg, 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.

Hunter 07:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Replied on Image talk:Iceberg nasa.jpg Hunter 09:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Thanks for your comment. I removed the tag. Paul 23:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Duplicates

I'd like to point out to you that there are quite a few duplicates in the Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. I've found five examples:

• Abdul Al Salam Al Hilal and Abdul Al-Salam Al Hilal
• Ali Husayn Abdullah Al Tays and Ali Husayn Abdutlah Al Tays
• Muhammad Abd Allah Mansur Al Futuri and Muhammad Abdallah Mansur Al Rimi
• Abdalaziz Kareem Salim Al Noofayaee and Abdelaziz Kareem Salim al-Noofayee
• Usama Hassan Ahmend Abu Kabir and Usama Hassan Ahmed Abu Kabir

There are probably more... Anyway, these should be merged; I've already tagged them with {{merge}}. Transliteration from Arabic can be tricky, but redirects to a single article are better than duplicates. GregorB 21:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And you will have to forgive me... Your work on this category is tremendous. As I said, transliteration is tricky, not only for us, mere mortals, but obviously also for the US Army "experts". (Detainee ID is there for a reason.) Anyway: some cases are rather clear-cut, e.g. Abdutlah is wrong while Abdullah is correct; same with Ahmend/Ahmed.

All that aside, I now see that there is another issue... "We're looking for a person named XY. Your name is YX. Well, close enough, we're putting you in the slammer. When journalists ask, we'll say you're XY." Now, when one writes an article on a detainee in such a case, who is it about, XY or YX? I see your point there. GregorB 08:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Help the needy

I have reverted myself, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Nobody's perfect. You should expand the article. At current it contains nothing that cannot be addressed with the more substantial article about the creator. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also proposed a new stub type for Gitmo detainees. review my proposal here: WP:WSS/P - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries about the stubs, and thanks for your comments there. Check back in seven days, when the proposal is ripe, and then you can give us a hand at sorting, I suppose, if the task is not beneath you. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

AFD underway for a Guatanamo detainee article

An editor has nominated the article Shaker Aamer that you started for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaker Aamer. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Shaker Aamer during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Also, as a special note, be aware that this AfD nomination is intended to be a test case for deletion of all of the articles on individual Guatanamo detainees. GRBerry 02:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note regarding Shaker Aamer Geo, I'll have a look over the next few days or so. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'm always good for a vote, and while I can't 'promise' that I'd always side with you, I think we know each other well enough that on War on Terror related articles we can be safe in assuming we are both in favour of keeping as much information public as possible. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment on my talk page. --JChap 16:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Sure. I have uploaded it a long time ago. Currently when I upload some pic, I put there both links. - Darwinek 22:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Guantanamo detainee AfD's

Hi Geo, thanks for your message. I've had a look at the articles as requested and voiced my opinion on the AfD pages. The articles could benefit from some copyediting and tidy up, but which articles couldn't? I don't see any particular bias or POV problems, they are well sourced and, although I have not checked all the references in extreme detail, I know enough from your previous work to be comfortable that it is properly presented. The only possible problem I do see is a stylistic one which may lead some readers to draw a POV conclusion, particularly in the "Testimony" sections. Perhaps more of a summary style might help, as written they almost read like mini essays. Something like:

The testimony given by Mohammed at his Combatant Status Review Tribunal included the following evidence:

• He was born in Afghanistan, but, like most of his immediate family, he had left Afghanistan for the duration of the Taliban reign.
• Along with his older brother, he had lived in Pakistan during the Taliban reign. Their father had been working in Dubai ....

Just a thought to help the articles read as more of a factual report on matters which might alleviate percieved POV issues somewhat. I don't really know about the sockpuppet issue, but if you think there is an emerging pattern you can always request a CheckUser. I hope this help. All the best. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Geo, thanks for alerting me to a couple, and feel free to keep doing so if I haven't already chimed in within 24 hours of listing. These are AFDs where I think there is a significant risk of partisanship overwhelming considered judgements, so would be happy to way in. And since I usually skip over biography AFDs, I might miss these. I'll do my best to give considered judgements. GRBerry 04:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Abaidullah

Can I ask what you found soapbox about this article?

Was it the second paragraph? I added it, possibly against my better judgement, when User:MilesToGo nominated the article for deletion due to non-notability.

I think I have read half or more of the 6,000 pages of transcripts the DoD started releasing on March 3rd. Abaidullah's detainee ID number had two separate Combatant Status Review Tribunals. It is not my place to say that this is inexplicable -- if the administration of the documents and evidence backing up the allegations against the detainees were well-managed. I came across anomalies like this, over and over again.

If I had only come across this kind of anomaly occasionally I would not consider this one notable.

Two other detainees, Abaidullah's former partner, and an acquaintance of Abaidullah's former partner, who he happened to be sitting next to on the bus that takes passengers across the border from Afghanistan to Pakistan, were rounded up and ended up in Guantanamo based on Abaidullah's confession. Abaidullah has recanted the confession that implicated these two men, which he stated was beaten out of him at Bagram.

The original research policy doesn't allow us to draw our own conclusions. I can't say Occam's Razor suggests that the account offered by Abaidullah to his Tribunal is the truth, and he and the men implicated by his false confession should be released. But, if I am not mistaken, the information needed for a reader to draw their own conclusions about the connection between these men, and draw their own conclusion about whether they really had ties to terrorism can be stated, provided it stated from a NPOV..

FWIW I now suspect that User:MilesToGo is a sockpuppet. Most new users, a couple of days into creating their new wiki-id, don't start nominating articles for deletion. -- Geo Swan 01:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that it is trying to push a particular anti-US agenda, that's all. I have already suggested that some of the AFDs in question were WP:POINT, and I think some have been closed.

Please remember to link to articles when you leave a message on my talk page, as I visit a lot of articles and AFDs and don't always realize what a certain message may refer to. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Captured lists of al qaeda suspect's names

Could we merge this somewhere? This is not an article, I can't even coherently explain what it's about... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Great Slave Lake and Lake Athabasca 6.png

An editor put an infobox in Great Slave Lake and added the above image but for some reason the picture will not show. It worked fine as a regular image in the page but just not in the box. I d/l it, changed it to a jpg and uploaded it as Image:Great Slave Lake and Lake Athabasca T.jpg which works fine. I tried other png images and they work fine. Strange. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That is strange. .jpg works for me. Thanks. -- Geo Swan 09:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Arabic Names

Maybe so but I didn't start this convention by a long shot., and every naming convention in the universe doesn't have to be catered to be wikipedia. Williamb 12:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There are over one hundred Guantanamo detainees whose surnames start with "Al ". Their names have all been put in categories with the "Al " part of the surname. Could you please explain why you felt it made sense to change the categorization sort order for the two you changed? Were you planning to change the categorization sort order for all Arabic names? You realize that is probably dozens of hours of work. If it is not broken, why fix it? Have a nice day. -- Geo Swan 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Because most everything done before in the 2006 deaths was done the other way. It is the way it is done there. Von and de and all other articles are done the same way. Williamb 01:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "...most everything done before in the 2006 deaths was done the other way."

Please look at Arabic name. Arabic names follow a much more differnt naming convention from the Engligh naming convention than French or German, or even Chinese. It seems to me that, if you are suggesting we shoehorn their names into the English naming convention you are guaranteeing endless and avoidable confusion. Is this really what you are suggesting? If this is not what you really meant, then please explain more fully.

You are incorrect when you state that articles are ignored in all names from other languages. Beethoven is categorized as "Beethoven, Ludwig van". But Vincent van Gogh is categorized as "Van Gogh, Vincent". Are you suggesting we change his categorizations as well? I bet you would spark a huge fight if you tried that. -- Geo Swan 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Rumors that Guantanamo detainees returned to the battlefield

I'm not sure if you have this already. It's on Released Detainees Rejoining The Fight. Unfortunately, it doesn't give all the names.
-- Randy2063 00:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have seen that one. I am skeptical of the assertion that one of the three youngsters detained in camp iguana was really recaptured.

1. At the top of the article it says he was held in Guantanamo for 2 years. At the bottom of the article it says he was held for three years. They were actually held in Camp Iguana for significantly less than two years, having spent time in Bagram first.
2. It says he was abused by the Taliban prior to his capture. Well, the youngest youngster said he had been sold to a group of brigands by his uncle, who used him as a sex slave. Brigands aren't Taliban.
3. He said he was 11 years old. At the time of his release the DoD said he was 13 or 14. The article, nine months after his release, says he is 18 years old. How does a kid grow several years older in just nine months?

I suspect they merely captured another teenager with a similar name. -- Geo Swan 01:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's something (links to here) on Rasul Kudayev. I don't know what happened to him since.

He was earlier reported "abducted" here.

-- Randy2063 01:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Qari Esmhatulla

Can you take a look at this four sentence stub? Claims he was a Guantanmo detainee, but doesn't have the standard categorization. Is this a duplication, or just one that is in particularly bad shape?

Abdul Salaam

Hi, thanks for the message about the above disambiguation page. I thought I might have been doing this the wrong way and will know in future. Sorry about the edit history (although I don't think there was a talk page). One question though: why does the AS (detainee) automatically have the priority as "the" AS? Is it Wk. policy that the first entry retains "ownership"? IMHO it would be fairer and better if the AS (Gaun. detainee) link on the disamb. page went to that article and not to AS. The football player has been around a lot longer and the Guar. AS is (hopefully) an ephemeral figure. Regards, bigpad 14:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have reverted the two relevant articles as per your message but don't appreciate the comment "screwing around with the edit history". I take your point but please refrain from using inappropriate language. Have a nice day bigpad 08:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Portland Seven talk

I don't know why it isn't the one you get from the page. Either there is some capitalization error, or it has something to do with User:IronDuke's endless reverts. I have been forbidden by CommanderKeane from going anywhere near IronDuke. I guess this is how Wikipedia works -- one admin's word is law, with no appeal. Good luck to you. -- BlindVenetian 10:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

why are you removing wikilinks and wikidates?

Why are you removing wikilinks and wikidates? If this is part of some new policy initiative why doesn't your edit summary point to the policy? -- Geo Swan 20:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to an example? I've been removing links that are repeated on the page.--Alphachimp ^talk 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Here. I believe it would always be a mistake to unlike wikidates, because the wikipedia counts on dates being in the wikidate format in order to allow readers to choose their preferred format for date presentation.

Further explanation to follow. -- Geo Swan 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK the date. Yeah that was the only article in which I changed the format of the date. What's the correct format (I couldn't find anything by searching.). --Alphachimp ^talk 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow!

I just had a look at the work you've done on the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, and all I have to say is .... Wow! I am so very impressed with what you have done and how you've kept your cool. This is the sort of thing that gives me hope for Wikipedia. Again, good luck to you and maybe someday I'll be able to help. -- BlindVenetian 20:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I do my best to maintain an NPOV. I don't expect to succeed 100% of the time.

When someone puts a tag suggesting I lapsed I ask them to be specific.

Frankly, I think that most of the time, when something I have written has triggered a concern over bias, it really has conformed to the NPOV policy, but it has touched on a commonly held misconception so it triggers a concern among those who believe in that commonly held misconception -- like (1) it has been established that all Guantanamo detainees are terrorists; (2) the Bush administration's detainee policy has a solid legal basis.

Those who do explain their concerns sometimes have a valid point. And I am happy to take those into account.

I would prefer if those who raised a concern did reply to my queries. Often they don't. I am doing my best to try to find a way to write from an NPOViewpoint, in a way that won't trigger concerns that spring from misconceptions. -- Geo Swan 15:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

You wrote:

You put a cleanup tag on Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri back in February.

But you didn't put a note on the talk page sayign what, exactly, you thought needed work. Would you mind taking a few minutes to do so now?

The way I see it, when people express their concern by putting a tag on an article, as you did, but then don't put a note on the talk page, explaining their concern, they leave the rest of us guessing when their concern is satisfied.

Tags like cleanup, when expanded, tell readers to look to the talk for a discussion about why the tag was applied. -- Geo Swan 22:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I put the tag on it was is because at the time the article was still looking like this. I've removed it, because the article looks good to me now. As far as I'm concerned the {{bias}} tag could be removed as well, but I wasn't the one who put it there.

--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 09:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Carolyn Wood - Military Career

Hey Geo. Can you please help me in rectifying a matter of accuracy? I need sourcing information on CPT Wood's assignment as A Company commander during OIF I.

If I am not mistaken, the CO for A Company was somebody else at the time. When CPT Wood was in Iraq, she did not hold any company commands.

Thanks,

user:jerry.mills

IIRC, according to the Fay Report, Wood was reassigned stateside in December 2003. IIRC, she was already CO of Alpha Company when elements of it were assigned to Abu Ghraib during the summer of 2003. According to the CBC documentary "a few bad apples?" Wood was a Lieutenant when she commanded elements of Alpha Company in Bagram, Afghanistan. "OIF I"? That would be "Operation Iraqi Freedom?"

I don't know when she was promoted to Captain. It is possible that when she commanded elements of Alpha Company, in Bagram, the rest of the Company answered to a more senior Company Commander, somewhere else. It is possible that another officer was the CO in April 2003, and that she was promoted to CO sometime between April and July. But she definitely was the Company Commander for at least the four or five months prior to her re-assignment stateside. General Ricardo Sanchez referred to her, when he tried to distance himself from the Intelligence Rules of Engagement that went out over his signature on September 14 2003. He said, "it had been drafted at the Company Commander level". Well, the "Company Commander" he referred to was Wood, as the rules were based, in large part, on a draft Wood had submitted. She had her operational experience in Afghanistan -- I gather more senior officers did not have actual operational experience supervising interrogations.

I am not sure, but I think that, at the time she submitted the draft interrogation rules, the elements of the 519th was smaller, and that she may have been the most senior MI officer at Abu Ghraib.

Colonel Thomas Pappas, Lieutenant Colonel Steve Joordan, and at least one Major were assigned there by November, the time the infamous photos were taken.

IIRC, according to the Fay Report, the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, eventually had about 250 troops at Abu Graib. The 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, of which her Alpha Company was a part, is in turn part of the 205th MI Brigade.

I hope that helps. -- Geo Swan 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Geo,

This is very weird. I guess the general (Sanchez) was wrong. Not the first time, not the last time a general will make "generalized" statements. But I trully appreciate the time you spent on finding this information for me. The only reason I was asking is because I personally involved with that unit, and she was never the CO.

But thanks anyway,

user:jerry.mills

Apology

I am sorry not to offer an explanation. I am new to everything here, but I will include my explanation soon. -PhattyFatt 14:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

GRF

Hey, thanks for checking in. I've copied your comments to the article talk page, and am responding to them there. Cheers. IronDuke 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)