User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2009-April-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

Shahzada

Hi, you asked about an edit that I made to Shahzada. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages), the items I removed from the page didn't appear to belong. Disambiguation pages are meant to be a list of links to Wikipedia articles, or may contains redlinks to articles which are likely to become wikipedia articles. The items that I removed didn't appear to fit the standards for disambig page items. In looking back at them, it may be that at least one of them could actually belong on the page.

I haven't been doing anything regarding disambiguation pages for over a year now, I'm not entirely up on the current standards. If you think that any of the items I removed may belong, feel free to put them back. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not attack users as you did in my userpage and instead focuse in the subject. You have no right in Wikipedia to assume that other users have no read about policies! I, have fully reviewed the history of edits in this article and nominated this article with full confidence. You have the right to vote and give your opinion and I have already responded to your comments. I hope I do not have to repeat myself. Regards. Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This warning is a reaction to this comment. I believe Parvazbato59 is mistaken to regard an appeal to consider the possibility they made a mistake as a personal attack. I explained why I reverted Shahzada back to when it was a disambiguation page. Geo Swan (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• If you decide to edit an article, make it right or your edits will be reverted next time. I corrected the link for "Shahzada(son of shah)" in article Shahzada as it had a dead link. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yvonne Bradley

How's it going? Is there anything I can do to help alleviate your workload Fritzpoll (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to shahzada, did not appear to be constructive as the article shahzada (meaning son of shah) already exists under shah, and therefore your edit has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Parvazbato59 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear user, this is not a comment, and not a "pointless personal comment" as you called it in your edit summery. I would highly recomment you to refrain from attacking users personally. Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe you know that the template you {{subst}}ed is only intended to be used for novice users. I know you are aware I provided an explanation on Talk:Shahzada, for the edit you don't agree with, because you replied to that comment. Leaving this kind of warning, on my talk page, over a perfectly valid edit, which, moreover, was explained on the article's talk page is not an appropriate use of this template. I believe that I could have used even stronger language than "pointless" in referring to it.

For the record I dispute that I have personally attacked you, or any other user. A suggestion you may have made mistakes is not a "personal attack". Please note: at the bottom of the edit page every contributor is warned that their efforts may be "edited mercilessly". Please regard civilly expressed substantive questions and comments as instances of the editing you agreed to when you made your contributions -- not as "personal attacks". Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned here and in the talk page, your edit was not constructive. I fully explained that one can NOT ignore the fact that when an article like Shahzada (son of shah) exists, it must be linked to the right place. You not only ignord it, but reverted that edit. Then you call my statement to you "pointless persoanl comment"!!! which word of that statemend was personal? This discussion is over.Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Shahzada

Just saw your reversion of my edits to the above. The detail in your version appears to be contrary to MOS:DAB, which reads "For people, include their birth and death years (when known), and only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name."(my emphasis). Can we agree on less detailed descriptions? Also on looking at the page again, I think the Abdul Matin section of the page should probably deleted.  – ukexpat (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is redirected to shah due to AFD result. Kind Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C) 02:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What's a Groubani?

• It would be a particular type of article that User:Groubani pioneered; he or she has created a large number of articles about the foreign relations between two given nations; thus, an article about relations between Australia and Austria would be called "Australia-Austria relations". Although there are other editors who have created similar articles, Groubani is seen more frequently than other editors. Some people see the articles as legitimate stubs that are consistent with Wikipedia's global approach; others feel that such articles should not be created unless there is evidence that one nation considers a relationship with the other to be significant. Mandsford (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair summary of how I feel. There's been one editor in particular (WilyD) who has done a great job in trying to rescue these articles, and in many cases evidence is turned up of news an ongoing cooperation between two nations, as was the case of Ireland-Zambia relations. My feeling is that there's been unreasonableness on both sides-- many of these are created from random combinations without checking to see whether two nations are working together on anything; on the other hand, some people still object to these articles even when sources are added (witness the Ireland-Zambia discussion). Thanks for asking my opinion on these. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Political Quarterly

Hi. There's a message of thanks for you from the author of the PC Pro article on my talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Commodore, or Captain?

Talk:William Bainbridge has comments by you about the rank or grade of William Bainbridge, USN. The title of "Commodore" was used as a courtesy title in both the US and British navies to indicate operational command and control over a squadron of ships, and the rank of Admiral was not authorized until 1862, long after Bainbridge was dead. You see that I agrree with your comments. Beyond that, it seems to me that Bainbridge should be described more fully in the introductory paragraph. A large print of Constitution vs. Java hangs in my dining room, so I know about that battle. Should I now carry on with revisions?--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA question

I finally answered yours :P --Closedmouth (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

Replaceable fair use Image:Animatronic depiction of waterboarding from Coney Island.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Animatronic depiction of waterboarding from Coney Island.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If the speedy deletion has been fully cancled and all requirements are now filled you aught to undo the notice on the page. Waterboarding#Animatronic_depiction_of_waterboarding_at_Coney_IslandEadthem (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. You only asked me one question (which seemed odd since you usually ask more than one?) and I don't think you came back to respond to it because that was kind of late in the RfA. But thanks for asking at least, it gets my thoughts out into the open. :) Happy editing! BOZ (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Could you please explain further...

I added the tag with the mistaken assumption that the piece was still publicly viewable. As is is not, and there is a well sourced section discussing the piece, I have no objection to the inclusion of the image, and you are welcome to remove the deletion notice (a fuller explanation of how this image is not replaceable would be a good addition to the fair use rationale). Could you please link to the page that discusses the need to provide a link to a free alternative? The tag itself states only that a free alternative would be creatable, it doesn't mention the need to provide one. The non-free content criteria are clear that images can only be used with a fair use rationale if they are replaceable, as opposed to replaced. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Empty references

Please refrain in the future from adding empty references to articles as you did with Coney Island waterboarding thrill ride. This is disruptive editing. Debresser (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

PhotoCatBot

Since you expressed concern about the algorithm that PhotoCatBot uses to identify stale reqphoto templates, this is to let you know that I did post the source code. It's at User:PhotoCatBot/Src/StaleReqphotoBot. Sorry about the delay. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting note

I just realised now that my article of disappeared-terrorist-never-found Abd Al-Rahim was in fact the same person as your Guantanamo-detainee article Abd Al Rahim Abdul Rassak Janko - so merged them. You may be interested to scan and see the videoclip of him, and photographs. Cheers. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Raven1977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Tnxman307's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TNXMan 04:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abdullah Shahab

I have nominated Abdullah Shahab, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Shahab. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Magioladitis (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Genius101's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Genius101 ^Guestbook 12:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My questions to you at WikiCommons

• Notice

If you are the same person as User Geo Swan on Wikimedia Commons, please check my message to you on your account there. Please also make a reply on my Wikimedia Commons account...not my Wikipedia account here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• replied... Geo Swan (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phillip E. Carter

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Phillip E. Carter, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Not seeing what I'd call "significant coverage" as called for by WP:BIO

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RadioFan (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

Dear Geo,

Your 2 images were passed by an Admin as you likely know (by now) but this is likely a one time deal. As an aside, what was your impression of Citizendium? I never edited there. I asked a contact of mine, who is now an Admin here, this question in 2008, and he said "all the action is here." This is my impression too. I know Sanger tries to create a better online dictionary but it seems that not enough people bother to edit there. They still lack an article on Ramesses II which is just incredible. I don't know what happened to Sanger's project but it doesn't seem to have caught fire...unlike Wikipedia with all its strengths and flaws. I can create articles like this here but frankly I doubt even Brittanica even knows about this obscure temple. I think this is the strength of Wikipedia. The weakness is it attracts crackpots, POV pushers and nationalist warriors--the bane of any sane discussion. Any views? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your brief remarks. I too wish Citizendium well. Its just that the project feels very lonely...as if you are the only person editing here apart from an overseer. There are many basic articles which are missing there. I even saw some vandalism there which surprised me. This doesn't surprise me here on Wikipedia sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your notes on my talk page

Maybe you and I got off on the wrong foot over the Douglas Feith article? Perhaps my comments and editing came across as unnecessarily aggressive or antagonistic. That wasn't my intention, certainly, and I'm sorry if you were offended. My approach to BLPs is sometimes more aggressive than many editors are used to, which is something I have to keep in mind when trying to quickly improve articles with contributors who are regular editors. I think the results bear out the general object of my editing on this particular article, but I'll try to be more moderate in the future with my approach.

From your notes on my talkpage, I get the feeling that you've taken a negative view of our interaction on the Feith page and that this may have colored your interpretation of unrelated events - my username change and fact tagging minor elements of your Bush Six article. You may not be aware that I've been editing regularly for some time - not as long as you, perhaps, but long enough to be cognizant of name change etiquette and when its appropriate to discuss article issues on the talkpage. I don't mind constructive criticism, but I think there is room on Wikipedia for differing personal styles and I would hope that you can accept that not everyone will share yours. At any rate, I hope that if/when we edit the same area in the future we can do so with a fresh start and no hard feelings. Thanks, Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Listas for non-English names

Hi - thanks for your message on my talk page. I had a feeling that some of the 'listas' entries I'd been adding were wrong, but I was adding it to every BLP I could find because another user had urged me to do so (see higher up my talk page). I apologise for my mistakes - I realise it isn't very helpful to try to sort a name that doesn't correspond to the English format of firstname-surname. In future, I'll only add the listas or defaultsort parameters when I'm certain of how a name should be listed.

By the way, if I haven't said this already: you're the guy who's responsible for creating all the biographies of Guantanamo Bay detainees, right? I've come across your work a lot on Wikipedia, and I just wanted to thank you for it. Unlike all the people creating pages on porn stars, internet celebrities, or their own companies, you're actually doing something important here. By recording all this information for posterity, you're providing a valuable service - to Wikipedia and to the world. I guess this probably sounds trite, but in all honesty, I don't think there's any other editor whose contributions I appreciate more. Robofish (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

I started a lot of the Guantanamo articles. But other people have made big contributions too. I think Sherurcij has touched just about everyone. Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Maulana Mahmood Madani

Hi

Could you clarify what you meant in your edit summary here?

Cheers pablo_hablo. 16:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I left the {{refimprove}} tag on because I thought that the article could do with some more references to support the text. It is annoying when people tag articles rather than have a look for a reference themselves (although I do this myself sometimes if I have no time, because editing the page adds it to my watchlist and I can return when time allows). pablo_hablo. 17:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Zabihullah Mujahid

The entire content of this article when I deleted it was:

<<A Taliban spokesman.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jvpjOKsien5NBMUGFTXxbbLSx5Fg>>

Obviously, I have no objection to you or anyone else writing a proper article on this person.

Also, I don't delete my old talk pages, I archive them. There is a link to the archives at the top of the current talk page. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Note there is a page at Zabiullah Mujahid, I have redirected Zabihullah Mujahid there as a likely alternative transliteration. pablo_hablo. 09:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Guryak truck bridge

Hi, I added the cleanup tag because of a couple things:

• The title is lowercased, whearas even in the article you reference it is uppercased.
• The article references how fast and on budget it was by an organization. Wikipedia is not an place for advertisement about how good a company may or may not be.
• It's a near copy-paste of pieces of the article in the reference section. It's not complete copyright violation in my opinion, but close.

It should be rewritten so that it matches Wikipedia's quality standards in my opinion. Leave any response on my talk page. Thanks. AeonicOmega (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tackling your concern in reverse order:

• I am concerned by your assertion that you consider my contribution close to a "copyright violation". Please review Fiest v. Rural. "Facts" can't be copyright -- only specific representations of them. Paraphrases are not copyright violations.
• I am straining to take your second concern seriously.
• Ditto. Geo Swan (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Winchester_model_1200.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Winchester_model_1200.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...

You have already exposed your views on AFD notifications on my talk page, and I have taken note of them. There's no need for a rerun, thank you. Raoulduke47 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please...

Could you please not revert the edits without studying them? Your revert of my bot on Evan Kohlmann created all that bold text in Evan Kohlmann#Publications and Evan Kohlmann#References which really shouldn't be there... please understand that I don't at all mind you're bringing this up, but the reverts seem a little pointless to me. The bold text really shouldn't be there. Thanks! (there's a more full description of this at the ANI thread) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I know it puts Kohlmann's name in bold in the references. I consider this an unfortunate side-effect worth putting up with because it will make it easier to re-use the references in other articles. Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My personal feeling on this is that each article should look good, and having a bunch of unwanted bold text in an article is worse than just not having someone's name linked if a reference is cut-and-pasted. That's just my opinion, but I think that it is the general feeling on this topic. I will look into starting a discussion after my semi-wikibreak in order to confirm or refute this perceived consensus. Thank you for your concern! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT & listas Values -- Suggestions

Hi!

You have expressed concern about the nature of DEFAULTSORT and listas values and have deleted at least one incorrect listas. By merely deleting the incorrect listas value you caused the page to reappear in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and there is a good possibility that the incorrect value will be reapplied.

• When you find an incorrect DEFAULTSORT or listas value on a page please replace it with the correct value and copy that value to the other value so that the DEFAULSORT and listas values are equal.
• Please go through all the biographies on which you have worked and ensure that each article has the correct DEFAULSORT value and each Talk page has the correct listas parameter.

I have tried to become informed about the naming conventions of the cultures in the Middle East but I do not pretend to understand them. I do know that most Arabic names are fine as they appear but I strongly suspect that Afghani names are not.

The goal is to get the number of "trivial" pages in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, the pages that can be sorted by their PAGENAME, down to zero so that the non-trivial pages can be identified easily when they appear. Your assistance in this will be greatly appreciated. JimCubb (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

After I delete an incorrect "listas" I check the atcual article, and delete its incorrect {{DEFAULTSORT}}. So any rogue bot or robot-assisted editing tool that relies on it will not find incorrect data.

WRT to your suggestion that incorrect DEFAULTSORT or listas fields should be replaced with the correct value -- well the 600 or 700 pages on articles about individuals with Arabic names on my watchlist have generally gone through more than one renaming. So replacing the incorrect name with the name that is (temporarily) the correct name doesn't seem to hold any value. I'd be much more willing to add a tag, maybe a {{NoListasOk}}, to protect the article from robots.

A {{NoListasOk}}, or reasonable equivalent, should have been created at the same time as the {{DEFAULTSORT}} and the use of listas parameters. Geo Swan (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that it is so difficult for you to be constructive and helpful. I am not asking you to go through the 700 pages on your watchlist and apply the correct values. I merely ask that you correct incorrect values when you find them. I have been through several times the number of pages that are on your watchlist, resolving defaultsort conflict, applying defaultsort values and applying listas parameters and have not been harmed by the experience. There were more than 2000 pages after the letter Z altogether.

{{DEFAULTSORT}} is a magic word in Wiki markup and was "created" to handle the hundreds of thousands of articles that would have to be sorted in a way other than the page name, Hamid Karzai and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example. Not everyone with a biography page follows Arabic naming conventions, not even all of those with Arabic names.

As noted above, it will not do to have Category:Biography articles without listas parameter clogged up by those pages that you have decided do not need a listas parameter value so these articles' talk pages will be assigned listas parameters and the articles themselves will be assibned DEFAULTSORT values. I am afraid that you will find little support for your deletions of such values.

JimCubb (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No amount of sympathy, on my part, is going to alter the fact that initial obliviousness to the fact that billions of individuals have names that should not be shoehorned into the inherited lastname-surname naming scheme. No amount of sympathy, on my part, is going to alter that well intentioned bot authors, and well intentioned volunteers, have created an enormous mess.

I understand that you are frustrated by the idea of Category:Biography articles without listas parameter having articles end up back in it because I removed bogus listas parameters.

I am not sure, from your response, that you actually appreciate my concern. Two categories would be sufficient if every biography was for an individual for whom a listas parameter actually made sense. But since there are billions of individuals for whom adjusting the sorting to accomodate an inherited lastname-surname doesn't make sense are you sure that just two categories are sufficient?

You have been through several times the 700 articles I mentioned? Well, over the last N years, I have been through those 700 articles several times. I added an html comment to most of those articles that said:

The following categories contain articles about individuals who almost all have names that follow the style for Arabic names. Arabic names don't have European style surnames that are inherited, father to son. So, there is no point changing the order in which they are sorted in the categories. Thanks!

That request was routinely ignored.

When I used to politely ask those volunteers whether they were aware that it didn't make sense to treat Arabic names as if they had inherited, none of those volunteers ever tried to explain the concerns you raise today about Category:Biography articles with listas parameter and Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. Some of them, a few of them, grew aggressive. One guy insisted that, not only should Arabic names be sorted on an inherited surname, he or she insisted that the "al" part of the name should not be considered part of the surname. Why? Because this is the English wikipedia goldarnit.

Let's be clear -- the current situation is an enormous mess. The fault lies with a surfeit a hubris and lack of foresight on the part of whomever first thought up the idea of automating sorting. This mess requires a rethink, from square one, on the part of you and your listas colleagues. Getting frustrated with me, for drawing this mess to your attention, is an instance of "shooting the messenger".

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

First, anyone who says that all persons should fit into the "lastname, firstname" sorting scheme is absolutely wrong and is acting against guidelines. I know that a couple of years ago some extremely misguided editors ran things like bots to force pages into that scheme. Those times should be over and at least three of those editors have promised me to keep their hands off of sort values. (Those times resulted in the Ptolemaic kings' being sorted by their epithets. Ptolemy I Soter was sorted as "Soter, Ptolemy I". He is now sorted as "Ptolemy 01".) Not even all Europeans fall into the scheme. Titled persons almost never do. Be very happy that you are not involved with Icelanders. (For some categories they do but for Iceland-specific categories they don't.)

Second, as has been explained, the bots that are working on DEFAULTSORT and listas parameter values are taking their values from the other value. The people who are working are doing that as well as constructing values. The object of the exercise is to get a valid value for each on each Biography article. I and the ones I know about who are working are being very careful to follow the conventions that are applicable to the person involved.

Quadell has been kind enough to go through some of the Arabic names on the Category:Biography articles without listas parameter page and added a DEFAULTSORT value. He used a pipe "|" instead of a colon ":" but a value was inserted. (I asked him to do this because his name figured quite prominently on the history of the Arabic Naming Convention article and its talk page.) I went looking for a talk page on Category:Biography articles without living parameter to use as an example of my first and second point and the one I found is almost too good.

On 15 May Quadell put a DEFAULTSORT value of "Abd Dhiyab al-Ajili" on the main page of Abd Dhiyab al-Ajili. On 22 May Yobot changed the pipe to a colon. On 25 May Listasbot copied that value and inserted it as the listas parameter. I have put in the living parameter and now the article should not appear in any category that would indicate an administrative problem in the article. In the categories where the article does appear it will appear in the correct place.

The first name that is in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter that I am certain concerns you, because it has your note on it, is Abdul Rahman. While I am not as certain as you are that Rahman is not an inherited surname in the European sense (Afghanis are most definitely not Arabs and their language is not related to Arabic), because of your note I would put the DEFAULTSORT of "Abdul Rahman" on the article and make the listas parameter on the WP Biog banner also "Abdul Rahman". (I would also put the WP Biog banner on top so that the blp banner is on top. I may put a talk banner on the page.) Poof! Abdul Rahman is not one of the pages that will hide the pages like Talk:Abigal Merwin and Talk:Abner Silver.

What is more, the ones that concern you are easier to do than many of the Europeans as all that is needed is to paste the page name into the values. Some European names are in bits and pieces.

Once everything is done, listasbot and the worker bees have made sure that all biography talk pages have a listas parameter, defaultbot has made sure that the listas and DEFAULTSORT values are equal and the dust has settled, I am going to push strongly for a concentrated manual scrutiny of every biography page and a hidden category for pages with questionable sort values. This would recruit members with experience and expertise in this area who would know that Arabs generally do not have inheritable surnames, East Asian names are already in "lastname, firstname" format but generally do not have a comma, and other bits of arcana. The hidden category would be for those pages that look wrong but are out of the individual editor's ken.

After all that are you willing to correct wrong values that you find rather than delete them? Could you be persuaded to assign correct values to the pages on your watchlist? As I noted before, someone is going to do it. The best way to insure that it is done correctly would be to do it yourself.

Thanks for the use of the hall.

JimCubb (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

Your edits here are assuming bad faith. Please assume good faith when editing with others on Wikipedia. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 03:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:AAGF. I never said any of the other participants in the discussion were exercising bad faith. On the contrary I said:

Claims of WP:BLP1E, in this particular case, give the very unfortunate appearance of an attempt to sanitize the historical record regarding an incident embarrassing to Americans. No doubt this was not the actual intent of the nominator, and those expressing a delete or merge. But it gives this unfortunate appearance nevertheless...

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those little words (like "not") get me every time. Must be time for bed. Sorry to bother. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 03:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

re: question...

Yep, that and I thought it sounded better than most any other name I could think of. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 10:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a bad feeling you were going there. I won't even dignify that with a response. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's a ridiculous question about the choice of my username undermining my credibility. Feel free to submit it to WP:UAA if you'd like. And in no way was my response to you uncivil. For that matter, I don't think your question to me was uncivil, but I'm not going to waste my time engaging you in a discussion about it, either. Finally, I'm not sure where you read that I was looking for admin coaching. It's probably too late for that. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I forgot that was even out there. Surprised you stumbled across it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Assistance -- Drilbot

Okay, here is what I have done.

• I found the offending pages and put links to them on the bot's talk page as is requested on that page. (It would have been easier had you provided the links.)
• I reset the DEFAULTSORT value to the PAGENAME so that a bot that is looking for pages that lack a DEFAULTSORT value will skip the page. (I also put the DEFAULSORT above the category tags so that it will affect them even though it is not necessary in these instances.)
• I copied the DEFAULTSORT value to the listas parameter so that a bot that is looking for pages that lack a listas parameter will skip the page. I also rearranged the banners on the pages when it was necessary. (Talk banner, if present, goes on top. The blp notice goes as close to the top as possible.)

These are all things that you could have done.

I believe that an appeal to Admins is appropriate and that you should make it. However, please provide valid links.

By the way, there is a bigger problem with the bot. It is putting the DEFAULTSORT value under the category tags rather than above them.

JimCubb (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Explaining Further

As I noted above, much of what I did in regards to Drilbot were thing I feel you should have done. Furthermore, as you have not protected the relevant pages on your watchlist from bots that add DEFAULTSORT / listas parameters to page that lack either by putting those values on those pages, I believe that the description is accurate.

It would take you less than half the time it would take me because I would want to read parts of the articles and you do not have to read them. I have asked User:Afghana to look at the pages in the Guantanamo Detainees Category and protect them for you. I believe she is somewhat familiar with the contents of the articles and she has the expertise to do things correctly and have the results accepted by you even if the results do not always conform to your idea of what is correct. (See Abdul Karim (Guantanamo detainee 520).)

JimCubb (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Latvia–Luxembourg relations

There appear to be plenty of news articles for Latvia–Luxembourg relations, do you have time to help integrate them into the article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

I have a few questions. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Iqinn (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Meatgrinder

Sorry about that. It was an unfortunate choice of words. :/ TNXMan 16:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Could you please explain further... (aka Toucan link removal)

Hi there. I'm responding to your message on my talk page of 23 May. I'm sorry for getting back to you so late. I've left a comment on Talk:Toucan regarding the link that I removed from the article. Cheers, ... discospinster _talk 17:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Same

Abu Obeida training camp and Abu Abaida Training Camp Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

good catch. Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File:File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Geo Swan (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Re: The Patrick M. McCarthy article.

I have replied to your questions at my talk page. CIreland (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Abdul Razaq

Well, I don't really remember but I think I did it because it seemed more logical that people get put into different beginning letters instead of everyone being categorized under "Abdul". I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Ordering_names_in_a_category about Arabic names. Anyway, I did not rely on a bot. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sloop-of-war

I've just noticed some comments which you made a couple of months ago in the talk.page of the article on sloops, and as you made a couple of incorrect statements, I trust you won't mind if I put you right. The article is actually correct in mentioning that ship-sloops (and other sloops) were not Post-Captains commands. The definition of the naval sloop was that it was NOT commanded by a Post-Captain. A Post-Captain was only appointed to command a Post-ship (i.e. a Rated ships). I'm afraid you are misinformed.

You are also incorrect in your other assertion that ship-sloops were flush-decked; the majority of ship-sloops in the Royal Navy were built with a quarter-deck and forecastle, the most numerous designs in the Royal Navy during the 1793-1815 period being the Cormorant class (31 vessels built to this design) and the Merlin class (16 vessels built to this design). There were of course a certain number of ship-sloops which were flush-decked, but these were mainly purchased ships or prizes taken from other navies and added to the RN. Most brig-sloops, on the other hand, were flush-decked. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Abdul Basit (terrorist suspect)

 Done. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply on Drv

WRT your note, I too considered whether a deletion review was in order. I would however have tried to conduct a civil dialogue with the closing admin first. Per AAGF I would always do my best to strictly follow the guidelines, and make sure my questions of the closing admin were respectful of their being a volunteer, trying to do their best. I am sorry to inform you that you and Stifle are mistaken if you think this is always useful. In my experience some administrators can't be bothered to make any effort to respond to question. Many other administrators give pro forma replies that are basically just a big Foxtrot Oscar. Geo Swan (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan. I don't think this is always useful as I've see the poor response you refer to from both those with and without the admin bit....people who know better. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Question... Kingboyk

FYI: I've left a reply which comments what is happening at User_talk:Kingboyk#question.... "Quite a paradox, if you think about it" --CyclePat (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/review/Gregory McMillion

Consider it absent-mindedness. :) I've userfied per your request, and have added the {{NOINDEX}} tag to it. Please do not remove this tag, as it prevents the content from being spidered by Google. I assume you wish to assess the article compared to the AfD and determine what can be done: if you decide nothing can be done, please ping me and let me know so that I can return the article to its deleted state at its old location. Alternatively, if you feel the AfD was lacking from your input because of the lack of notification, please feel free to go straight to DRV, simply notifying me on my talkpage - I shan't take it personally, since I think it would be a sign that you were unable to influence consensus due to a lack of notification, and that it is that aspect of process you are challenging rather than the close itself. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Basij (Afghan student organization)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Basij (Afghan student organization), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This article is based on a misunderstanding. Although an Afghanistan citizen, Tukhi was a resident of Iran, and a member of the Iranian Basij.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  --Lambiam 09:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sort Key

I think I understand your question! In wiki, it is the common practice (as it is is many places, like the phone book) to sort people by last name then first. So, President Barack Obama would be categorised as Obama, Barack. That is why I did that in the article you mentioned. BUT I know some cultures (China is one, I think) put the last name first then the first name. So, if Afghanistan is one of them, please change it. But the bottom line is, biographical articles are sorted by last name, not first. Postcard Cathy (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I sorted it that way. AFAIK, a bot doesn't sort names; if it needs to be changed, it needs to be done manually. Do what you think is best. Since you know more about this than I do, if a change is needed, I think you should do it yourself to make sure it is done correctly and leave an edit summary explaining so no one changes it in the future - following the general wiki rule of sorting by surnames.Postcard Cathy (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the {{DEFAULTSORT}} value for Ezatullah Zawab, with a note explaining the change, and put the same value as the |listas= parameter on the talk page. All should be well.

JimCubb (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)