User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2009-January-to-March

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

Executive orders

You asked on my talk page for me to look at Executive Order 13355 and Executive Order 13356, both of which have only a single primary source citation, the executive order itself. I do not believe that all or most executive orders are inherently notable (as User:BD2412 suggested in a recommendation you quoted), and I believe that articles about executive orders should have secondary sources to establish notability. On the other hand, a cursory search indicates that secondary sources do exist as to Executive Order 13355 and Executive Order 13356. Thus, I personally would see no point in nominating them for deletion, unless it was someone's goal to stimulate people to improve the articles by adding those secondary sources. But, in any event, that does not mean that the articles should be left as they are, because they do need to get those secondary sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Peter Murphy (JAG)

I have nominated Peter Murphy (JAG), 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/Peter Murphy (JAG). 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. SpinningSpark 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GTMO individual

Hi. Is this guy that one? I figure you'd be able to identify him and assess whether a redirect and an update is needed. Sandstein 15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated his article. Thanks for the heads-up. Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AmericanTerrorism

I replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 5#Template:AmericanTerrorism. I apologise for not bringing up my concerns on the talk page first, but I wanted to bring them to greater attention, so went straight to TFD instead. In hindsight, that was probably the wrong decision. Terraxos (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi

If this guy's indeed held at Gitmo, think you can improve his article and fill it out a bit? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, created Ali Soufan today; figured you might be interested in filling it out a bit with the Guantanamo information since I see he's linked on User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/documents/US interrogators. Cheers. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Arsala Khan (suspected al Qaida financier)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Arsala Khan (suspected al Qaida financier), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

doesn't seem notable

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. Article3 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

disputed. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Colony

Here's the before: diff. I think I did okay with it. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:78.34.128.236

Dear Geo Swan

I read the message you posted at User talk:78.34.128.236. I believe that this user is a sockpuppet of a user who has been indefinetly blocked. I believe this is because another user, User:78.34.145.54, started up [1] an AFD for the Chesley Sullenberger article. This IP stated on his/her talk page, "Thanks, but I'm obviously not new to Wikipedia, what with making an edit like this one. Just (currently peacefully) evading an indef block here. Anyway, cheers."[2] I believe User:78.34.145.54 and User:78.34.128.236 are the same, because User:78.34.128.236 said on the AFD discussion page: "I have already withdrawn my AfD nom." [3]. Since I believed User:78.34.145.54 was a sockpuppet of an indefinetly blocked user, I reported that IP on the admin noticeboard: [4]. The general response was that the IP had done nothing bad yet, but keep a close eye and report it again if the user does cause trouble.[5] If you do feel this person behind the two IPs is causing trouble, please feel free to report User talk:78.34.128.236, and consider adding the evidence linking User:78.34.128.236 and User:78.34.145.54 together which I believe shows by extension that User:78.34.128.236 is a sockpuppet of an indefintely blocked user. Cheers for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the various posts from the IP addresses in the 78.34.xxx.xxx range are from a single individual. Due to DHCP it is not unusual for a contributor to post from a range of IP addresses, particularly if they are using a telephone modem, not broadband. Their ISP would issue them a different IP every time they connect.

Do you use Reverse DNS lookup? That range traces to the RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam.

I agree the RIPE user has lapsed from the civility policies. But I haven't seen any lapses that I would consider worthy of being blocked.

I'll keep an eye on these IP addresses.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, a block shouldn't be evaded. Gary King (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, 78.34.x.x is me. And the dynamic IP address is due to my ISP (not Amsterdam btw, but fairly close to it). 78.34.129.171 (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re grumpy comments

Re User talk:78.34.128.236. Among the articles I've written are Secondary antisemitism, Daniel Gottlob Moritz Schreber, Hermes Phettberg, Tom Liwa, Gert Postel. I don't claim to be the perfect contributor and I'm sorry if I come across as grumpy, but... I am. Somewhat, at least. I just resent certain trends that appear to become stronger as Wikipedia grows. Recentism or "newsfadism" is among those. Again, sorry for upsetting you. Please don't take it personally. It's the phenomenon I resent, not any editor. 78.34.129.171 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for your reply. I won't resent it. But I will encourage you to do your best to curb the appearance of grumpiness.

Do you know what Benjamin Franklin wrote? He suggested that young men, who resented being more junior than older people, and those with more money, should merely pretend to be humble. Merely pretending brought the same rewards as actual virtues. Have you ever considered, well, merely pretending to not be grumpy? Geo Swan (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a bit like in Malcolm Holds His Tongue? It got him a peptic ulcer! Also, that's just typical: The one time I'd link to some nn TV episode article, there is none! So typical! :D Cheers and see you around. (Seriously though, thanks for the impulse, I promise I'll try to keep it in mind.) 78.34.129.171 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish terrorists

Can I get your thoughts on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_18#Category:Tamil_terrorists? Many thanks. THF (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fun game

Let's play "Which agency fucked this up?", it's my favourite game! AM 770 is saying that it was Zarqawi, not Abu Musab al-Suri who ran the safehouse/camp - which would seem to make some sense, except Zarqawi's Jordanian ("Abu Musab", Father of Musab, "al-Suri", the Syrian). Note that they're also saying the interrogation took place the day before Arar was renditioned. Not "several weeks' before...and Khadr didn't actually identify him until he was coerced/pushed into saying he did. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Zaid v. Bush

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

Nothing here independently notable of Waleed Said Bin Said Zaid article.

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. THF (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've already merged the two articles' content. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Category:Global_War_on_Terror_captives.27_habeas_corpus_petitions THF (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted you, in any case, as I have before. I can't possibly admonish every other user on this site for every error they make; I can only remedy it by making the situation easier. I am very busy in real life. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. in this case, I thought that merger was appropriate. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I handled this incorrectly. I put the PROD notice on one article I ran across, and figured that you and I would have five days to discuss, and Bearian interceded and merged. After Bearian interceded, I discovered there were 100+ other articles with identical concerns. I asked him how I should handle, and he suggested WP:AN, which is the only place where it's being discussed, and I gave you notice that it was a community-wide discussion. You are correct I should've raised it with you first, which is what, incidentally, I got told at WP:AN.

Anyway, your argument that merger is inappropriate because one of the habeas cases "might" blow up contradicts WP:CRYSTALBALL. There are already individual articles about individual Guantanamo detainees, and creating content forks about cases that are not yet notable (and may well be mooted in the next 24 hours) is a bad idea; the articles themselves are simply indiscriminately listing court filings without regard to the significance of the filing. THF (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Thanks.

You misunderstand my argument. I don't think we should cover these cases because one of them might blow up -- and thus merit coverage. I think they already merit coverage, and are all in the slow process of blowing up now, as we discuss them.

Some contributors assert that the guidelines and policies require topics to have "significant press coverage" -- which some of these articles don't have. But no-where do the guidelines and policies say that. There are whole fields, serious fields, like the history of science, which will never have press coverage.

These cases are (1) unprecedented; and (2) remarkable. I don't know how many US citizens and US residents have writs of habeas corpus filed on their behalf every year. Let's pick an arbitary figure. Let's suppose it were 100,000. How are these habeas petitions remarkable, when almost all of those 100,000 aren't? Two reasons. The 99.9% of habeas petitions in the continental US that don't merit coverage merely reflect the standard, predictable and unremarkable functioning of the US justice system. The Guantanamo captives were held for years, without charge, without ever being told why they were being held. Many of them, like Bismullah (Guantanamo captive 968) I mention below, were the victims of mistaken identity, or of false denunciations -- mixups which could have been cleared up shortly after their arrival in US captivity if their detention had proceeded under the rule of law. Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFH, I started to respond to your latest comment on WPANI, but it scrolled off. Response to that here...

TFH, I don't think any serious contributor has a problem with you, or I, or anyone else, raising our concerns, so long as we do so in a fair way, that complies with policy, common sense and common courtesy. I don't think anyone is trying to get you to stop trying to improve the wikipedia.

You asserted that only the cases that reached the SCOTUS aren't "problematic". No offense, but I suspect you would not have written this if you were more fully informed about some of the other cases, like Parhat v. Gates? Hozaifa Parhat was the only captive whose DTA appeal ran all the way to conclusion. Or How about Sliti v. Bush -- Muhammad Hamid Al Qarani, who for the last several years was the youngest captive, was recently ordered to be freed due to his habeas petition. His judge ruled that the US had captured this 14 year old boy based on nothing. The allegations against him were amazingly flimsy -- like that he had been Abu Qatada's lieutenant, in London, in 1998, when he was an eleven year old schoolboy, who had never left Saudi Arabia. Senior DoD spokesmen, hinting at classified info, tried to defend this bizarre claim. Judge Leon found nothing to support it.

You ask: "Why focus on habeas cases that are going to be mooted by an Obama executive order in the next couple of weeks when it's clear that several experienced Wikipedia editors find them problematic?" Would you argue that we shouldn't cover slavery, in the US South, because Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation? Of course you wouldn't. Slavery remains an important part of US history, even once it was outlawed. Exactly how far are you going with your suggestion we halt our efforts to provide meaningful, comprehensive coverage of Guantanamo related topics, because you think Obama is going to render them moot?

Let me remind you, their cases aren't moot yet. Realistically, if Obama were to sign an order closing the camp today all these cases would remain worth covering.

Some of the captives are going to remain in US custody, even if the Guantanamo camp is closed.
As the release of Bismullah this week shows, the Bush administration failed to determine which captives were innocent bystander, victims of mistaken identity or false denunciations; which were ordinary combatants who should have been accorded POW status; and which were combatants who seemed to have stripped themselves of POW status by committing a war crime. Obama may feel he has to order the US military to redo making this determination all over again, from start, this time complying with the USA's Geneva Convention obligations.
Almost all of the captives who were set free remain saddled with the determination that the USA considers them "enemy combatants".
These cases are the first step for former captives who want to sue the USA for kidnapping them.

These cases will remain important, no matter what Obama chooses to do. And why am I working on them, rather than some other topic that you, personally, think would be more valuable? Because the topic interests me. I think it is important. And I want to understand it more fully.

Forgive me for pointing this out, but I don't think what you have written is internally consistent. You would be totally correct to resent if other contributors tried to order where you made your contributions to the wikipedia. But when you question my working on this topic because "it's clear that several experienced Wikipedia editors find them problematic" -- isn't your comment exactly the kind of order you thought you perceived, and you resented? I am an experienced contributor too. And I expect wikipedia contributors who have a concern over my contributions to engage in reasoned civil dialogue, without regard to whether they consider themselves more experienced than I am, or lesss experienced; and without regard to whether the community has entrusted them with administrator authority.

In your third point you expressed some vague criticism of these articles. I'll acknowledge these articles would have been a better if I had tried to create fewer in the time available to me, and spent more time on each one. But if the topics remain worthy of coverage, they remain worthy of coverage, even if the current instance of the articles need work. I do my best to followup on every serious, civil, specific concern I see expressed about my contributions. I followup on some of the vague or rude concerns too. If you are really serious, I would appreciate you being specific about your concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy your remarks and respond at Wikipedia:AN#Category:Global_War_on_Terror_captives.27_habeas_corpus_petitions. THF (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

Happy to move the discussion to the wikiproject, but wanted to address between the two of us something you complained I didn't address:

I am going to repeat one of the points you avoided acknowledging, clarifying, or refuting. You seemed to be expressing the view that other contributors were trying to order you around. I agree you would be totally justified resenting if other contributors here tried to order you to work on topics in which you had no interest, or to stop working on areas you were interested, with vague justifications. Yet you are suggesting I should stop working in this area because "...several experienced Wikipedia editors have a (vague) concern."

The reason I didn't address that was because I suggested no such thing, and I didn't want to embarrass you or sidetrack the discussion to point out how badly you misread what I said. My point was simply that Birgitte's argument against my complaint suffered from WP:KETTLE problems because it was equally applicable to her working on the articles in the first place. Hence my preface your argument works both ways. THF (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

Well, the article doesn't establish notability (as Wikipedia isn't news). However, I apologize for tagging it, I did not know you were working on it (and there was no {{inuse}} tag). I'm apologize. TheAE talk/sign 04:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Chesley Sullenberger

On January 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chesley Sullenberger, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fuller explanation...

... of the tora bora coordinated on my talk page. Sorry I took a while to answer, my wikipedia editing is rather sporadic nowadays. ¨¨ victor falk 01:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you thanks

Stumbled across Tariq al-Sawah's weigh-in numbers this morning, had a good morning laugh at the...incompetence of somebody registering that number (were there perhaps three guys standing on the scale at once? Was al-Sawah smuggling a golfcart in his pants?) without noticing. Cheers. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:ITN

Bottom of page. -x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.190.232 (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

k

Renamed it while working on User:Sherurcij/Gitmo; the list of the January arrivals as much as I can make it, going to keep digging around, your weigh-ins were a great help. I notice you have ten weigh-ins on the 12th, and ten two days later...wondered if there was any chance they were the same batch of twenty weighed over two days, or a separate shipment. *shrugs* Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading File:Mohammad Golab Mangal, Laghman Province, Afghanistan.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed

Geo Swan, In response to your question, I work in Helmand and spend a lot of time with local Afghans and have dozens of great pictures I'd like to share. Unfortunately I don't have the time to get up to speed using wikipedia and find it resource intensive at the moment. My current challenges are (i) is this the right way to correspond with you or is there some email-like system on wikipedia? (ii) I uploaded two photos (Mangal in a bazaar and a girl with water can) and thought I'd completed the licencing section properly. But one has just been taken down. What didn't I fill in correctly and how do I undo it.

A Wiser World (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

claim of racism

Well all about arab bombers that is racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AK-196 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to leave my reply on Talk:Casio F91W Geo Swan (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability of Brandon Neely

A tag has been placed on Brandon Neely requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Sorry, but this guy became notable for this one occasion, that's no reason for an article. De728631 (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with De728631 here: that's WP:ONEEVENT. Anyway, I'm not that dogmatic about it. Would it be alright for you if I userfied it for you to work upon? Lectonar (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied per your request; incidentally, I see my position as an admin as a pure janitor (that is why I told you I'm not dogmatic about it). The whole BLP business is a very nasty one (and I won't comment on it); I'm quite sure we will end up with flagged revisions in the end, like the german wikipedia, and everything will be very regulated. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your question

As stated in WP:ONEEVENT and in WP:Notability (people), "When a person is associated with only one event,... election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the event article in summary style."

That is why don't think we need a standalone article for Neely. Yes, he is notable for speaking up in the Guitmo issue but that's all about him. He should have his role in relevant articles but not a bio of his own. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slahi

Hello GS,

Thanks for adding a new section. Do you have another article source? CP doesn't mention another lawyer or quote the judge saying "tenuous." I'd change "men's" to "their" lawyer if they share a lawyer.

I have a screenshot of Slahi from a Der Speigel article. Is there a way it can be added to the page? I'd contact the copyright owner if I knew how and thought use would be granted.

Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Slahi is still imprisoned with no reasonable expectation of release, I'd support "Fair Use" claim of using an image that Der Speigel obtained (likely from his family with implicit release anyways). Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 13:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the URL on Sherurcij's talk page. Here it is: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,583193,00.html. Article was posted October 2008. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category: Prisons

Hi!

Because it doesn't exist, I have changed Category:Prisons of the United States in Category:Extrajudicial prisons of the United States to Category:Prisons.

--Biezl (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For cleaning up the Eldridge Cleaver talk page. What you did is often thankless work. I wanted that to change, at least once. In admiration, David in DC (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but not thankless this time. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and Articles

You asked me to refresh your memory, or let you know if I thought that consensus had changed, with regard to how having an article supports the existence of a category. There is a way in which having an article supports a category - it by showing that the category is of encyclopedic merit. This happens when an article is effectively a main article is for a category, as Bird is for Category:Birds or as Guantanamo Bay detention camp is for Category:Guantanamo Bay detainment camp. The logic is that if 1) the subject is of encylopedic merit and deserves an article and 2) there are multiple related articles on sub-topics then there ought to be a category to help the reader find those articles on sub-topics.

This logic is not applicable in the case of the article Mosa Zi Zemmori and Category:Casio digital watch detainees because Mosa Zi Zemmori is ostensibly a biography of an individual detainee, not an article on the subject of Casio digital watches and Guantanamo detainees. Indeed, there is no such article, merely a couple sentences in an article on a particular model of a Casio watch.

Once again, I want to reiterate my recommendation that we get rid of most of these articles on individual detainees. Please read the section Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event. Most of the detainees are notable only for their detainment, and we can not write a complete biography of their life. These are exactly the sort of people where we should not have an article that purports to be a biography, we should only have a redirect to a discussion of the larger event. GRBerry 17:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I have responded to the other aspects of your query on my talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Linda Fiorentino

I responded on the article talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Bradley

PJHaseldine's comment had me half wanting not to do this, since I resent being told what I have already said I will do as though I am an errant schoolboy. However, human reaction aside, I have obviously userfied the article as you requested per the reasons you gave. Let me know when it's ready for prime time. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley‎. Chillum 15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Yvonne Bradley's deletion review is now taking place here.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rebecca S. Snyder

I have nominated Rebecca S. Snyder, 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/Rebecca S. Snyder (2nd nomination). 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. THF (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Andrea J. Prasow

I have nominated Andrea J. Prasow, 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/Andrea J. Prasow. 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. THF (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Peter C. Bradford

I have nominated Peter C. Bradford, 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/Peter C. Bradford. 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. THF (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Edmund Burke (human rights lawyer)

I have nominated Edmund Burke (human rights lawyer), 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/Edmund Burke (human rights lawyer). 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. THF (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Angela L. Campbell

I have nominated Angela L. Campbell, 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/Angela L. Campbell. 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. THF (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Charles H. Carpenter

I have nominated Charles H. Carpenter, 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/Charles H. Carpenter. 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. THF (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of John A. Chandler

I have nominated John A. Chandler, 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/John A. Chandler. 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. THF (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Pamela Rogers Chepiga

I have nominated Pamela Rogers Chepiga, 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/Pamela Rogers Chepiga. 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. THF (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Joshua Colangelo-Bryan

I have nominated Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, 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/Joshua Colangelo-Bryan. 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. THF (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of James R. Crisfield

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

No assertion of notability.

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. THF (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of James R. Crisfield

I have nominated James R. Crisfield, 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/James R. Crisfield. 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. THF (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories on userfied pages

Hi: Don't forget to temporarily comment out category links on userfied pages -- otherwise, they still show up as articles in the category. Ray^Talk 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray: I was always curious how to resolve categories for userfied articles. What do you mean by "comment out"?

To leave an invisible comment, enclose the text you intend to be read only by editors within . For example: . Putting that around the category tags until things are ready to go out into the wild should do it. Ray^Talk 23:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GSwan: You might be interested in knowing that your talkpage is included in Category:Guantanamo Bay detainment camp--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your assistance please...

The record shows you deleted Shailendra Singh (Indian politician). Can you tell me where it was redirected to point at?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a redirect to Shailendra Singh, which was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shailendra Singh. Cheers, Amalthea 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Banners

Some of your sub-pages seem to have the WikiProject Biography banner on them. Project banners are only to be used on the talk pages of articles and should never ben on user pages or sub-pages. Would you please remove all banners, tags and anything else that would categorize a sub-page as if it were an article page? Thank you.

JimCubb (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Will A. Gunn

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

Subject fails notability

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. Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this PROD. I'm not sure what the right AFD outcome would be, but I actually found an approximation of an independent biographical source, so I gave the article an almost total rewrite and removed the PROD. (I kept most of the first sentence.) GRBerry 22:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jeffrey J. Davis

I have nominated Jeffrey J. Davis, 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/Jeffrey J. Davis. 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. THF (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jim Dorsey

I have nominated Jim Dorsey, 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/Jim Dorsey. 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. THF (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Joshua L. Dratel

I have nominated Joshua L. Dratel, 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/Joshua L. Dratel. 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. THF (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread

There is an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard thread that may/may not relate to you located here. ∗ \ / (⁂) 09:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo's Death

I responded to you on my talk page.--MisterBorgia (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip.

That has always been a sort of gray area. If someone wrote it offsite, is it still protected by copyright and therefore ineligible? Thanks for clearing that up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Shayana D. Kadidal

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Shayana D. Kadidal meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Shayana D. Kadidal. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article.

Samhita Mukhopadhyay

Hi there! Thanks for your help in the discussion on Jessica Valenti's deletion. If you get a chance, I could use your perspective over at the current debate on Samhita Mukhopadhyay's article for deletion debate. Thanks!! RMJ (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your lawyer bio work at AfD

Hi Geo Swan,

It pains me to see someones efforts tossed aside. I regret that I'd have to agree that most of the material can't stay as it is, in mainspace, because no reputable source has previously provided such material. It's possible that the material can be reassemble into other articles, or that you could put your work together somewhere else. In this case, I'd suggest that you wait for the AfDs to finnish before requesting userfication.

I expect that, in future, someone like you will publish something covering these lawyers. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to anticipate such sources (at least not in mainspace, you might geet away with it in userspace). Your work, itself, is not detrimental to wikipedia, but allowing it would be a dangerous precedent, making it harder to hold back more and more tenuous subjects.

If you do userfy any material, out of respect for the GFDL, I hope that you will make sure that you have a version accompanied by full attribution, i.e. with the full history intact, even if the only contributor was yourself. If you do move the material offsite, please be sure to provide attribution to all authors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I don't know if you saw my acknowledgment of tunnel vision, in a couple of those {{afd}}. I think a couple of the articles THF nominated do merit inclusion. He asserted that Rebecca Snyder only had one notable Guantanamo client. (Actually he said "barely notable".) In fact she had two. David Hicks and Omar Khadr, two of the most notable captives. Geo Swan (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Abdul Zahir (Taliban leader)

I have nominated Abdul Zahir (Taliban leader), 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/Abdul Zahir (Taliban leader). 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. Ironholds (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your assistance please...

Done. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:American captives in Kabul

Category:American captives in Kabul, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has changed a bit from the initial nomination, with some editors in favor of deletion. I'm not sure if that means you would like to comment further, but I thought I would at least let you know about the shift in case you weren't tracking it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your message to Gonzo fan2007

Re your message to Gonzo fan2007: Gonzo fan2007 is on an extended wiki break. I've been watching his talk page for him while he is gone. As for your question, the talk page should have been restored after the article was restored. I checked the revisions that were deleted and it was just the original editor stating what the journal is about. I don't think anything of long-term interest has been lost. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I closed the DRV. The undeletion isn't controversial since the article was restored. The history and talk page is a little messy, but everything is back in one form or another. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Re your question here: I'm of the opinion that an article that was deleted by consensus 30 months ago and that had zero references isn't really a good starting point; my suggestion was to start fresh because really, that could only improve the article. As I'd already endorsed the deletion in the discussion, I left history undeletion to the discretion of other admins. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of Yvonne Bradley

Hi Geo Swan, User:Fritzpoll has asked for your comments about my request for the restoration of the improved Yvonne Bradley article to Wikipedia mainspace.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua L. Dratel

I reviewed your page on Joshua L. Dratel, and did an independent google news and scholar search and concluded that not only is he notable, but that he is sigificantly more notable than the article which got me involved in this whole debate/discussion (David J. Cynamon). I would thus set re-creating the article on Dratel as a much higher priority than the Cynamon article. I honestly don't think the Cynamon article is all that important--I mainly felt so strongly about it because the decision reeked of disregard for wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would love to work together with you to re-create an article in userspace first on Dratel, and then perhaps on other notable lawyers that have been wrongly deleted. In the case of Cynamon, the article that was deleted was very bad so nothing really was lost...but it was the process that bothered me so much. I am fully committed that we could write very good articles on many of these lawyers--but i'd want to have them totally locked down--well-written, NPOV, and relying only on reliable sources. This will help create a consensus to keep the articles if they come up for deletion again. Cazort (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also encourage you to create a new article for Joshua L. Dratel for all the reasons as stated by Cazort. Keep up the great work! Esasus (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detecting fraud in data sets

The information you posted on my talk page about the weights of detainees is very interesting. There are a number of statistical techniques that can be used to detect fraud in data sets. More often than not, the people committing the fraud don't even take the most basic efforts to prevent detection of the fraud, so if it is egregious enough, it can be almost trivial to detect. Often, fraud can be separated from general sloppiness if there is enough data to establish that all of the errors, omissions, or anomalies tend strongly in a certain direction when the assumption that they were random errors would have led to a more random pattern. However, if the people were more careful at masking the fraud, or if the general slopiness greatly exceeds the amount of fraud, or if the data set is sparse or erratic (like the one here) it can be much trickier. If you'd like to email me to talk about this, please write to me via the contact form on the Merit Exchange home page. Cazort (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

et al v Bush

What's the status on your et al v Bush pages? Got like 50 broken redirects since the pages were deleted after userfication. Wondering if I should leave them be or delete 'em. Q ^{T C} 09:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the redirect bot isn't running at this time, but somebody took care of em :) Happy editing. Q ^{T C} 02:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Lakhdar Boumediene.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lakhdar Boumediene.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stanley Barracks

I don't know much about them, I just read the article that stated "the Stanley Barracks were mostly demolished in 1953." - SimonP (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The historic stone building, usually referred to now as the Stanley Barracks, were once just the officer quarters. They served, for many years, as a Maritime Museum. Many of the displays were moved to a new maritime museum at Harborfront about ten years ago. I thought for a while that the remaining exhibits remained at the old location. But apparently they were simply retired. I don't know what purpose the barracks are put to now. Geo Swan (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I thought you might be interested in the image of the raid at China Daily for one of the high-value Gitmo detainees who faced charges for the embassy bombings. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting picture, interesting report. The picture probably would not survive a challenge if someone claimed {{fairuse}}.

The Pakistani computer engineer referred to in this story? I have forgotten his name, but there are a couple of remarkable aspects to his story. He had only been captured for a couple of weeks when Condalleezza Rice outed his capture. This ruined any chance of turning him into a double-agent. Rice seemed to have revealed his capture solely for short-term political gain. IIRC the Chief Justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court, the one Musharref dismissed, had started a serious inquiry into Pakistanis who had been disappeared. And this engineer was at the top of his list. If I am not mistaken, because Pakistani authorities had violated Pakistan's laws, by seizing this guy, holding him in secret, and failing ot lay charges against him, he was released. Geo Swan (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Noor al-Deen

A tag has been placed on Noor al-Deen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Purplebananasandelephants (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]