User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2010-October

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

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

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Mohammed al Quahtani.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Mohammed al Quahtani.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. The template placer did not notify you. So i am doing this. IQinn (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea who took the photo? Looks like to me as it was taken by the government. IQinn (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ccgc_des_grosileurs_moored_at_Nanisivik.jpg

I have nominated File:Ccgc_des_grosileurs_moored_at_Nanisivik.jpg for deletion, a free version has been created and is in use. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed that the newly published free image should supercede the fair use image. It was used for 26 months, and I regard it as an appropriate instance of a fair use image, due to the inaccessibility of Nanisivik, and how infrequently it is visited. Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it was certainly a valid instance of fair use. I have a few of the area, but none of the port, although I should have one of the concentrate shed. It will take some digging, but I will look when I get back to Canada. Cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. That would be great! Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Family photo of Majid Khan, in 1999.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Family photo of Majid Khan, in 1999.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I restored the image at the article where it had formerly been used. I initiated a discussion at WP:Non-free_content_review. Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MFD on part of your userspace

Just to let you know that somebody filed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sorry that I did not inform you of this MfD earlier. I did not realize that you were not automatically notified of this by the script until recently. The truth was that I have been busy off-wikipedia as of late and had not read the full discussion. Please accept my apologies. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nazih Almalki

The article Nazih Almalki has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Manifestly fails WP:BIO - a single one-sentence mention of the subject in a single source. Moreover, this is a negative BLP entry which raises additional problems.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mohammed Salim (Bagram detainee)

The article Mohammed Salim (Bagram detainee) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Manifestly fails WP:BIO - referenced to a single source, a judicial transcript. Also, this is a negative BLP entry, which raises additional concerns.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Mohammed Salim (Bagram detainee)

Hello Geo Swan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mohammed Salim (Bagram detainee), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Creator was not the only editor of this page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I simply looked at the number of editors, and not at their contributions. Per your request, I have deleted the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Geo Swan/working/Khalid Khawaja

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IQinn (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil conversations

Once again you are archiving our conversation while a discussion is ongoing without giving me the possibility to reply and even here to reply to your baseless accusations and to set the record strait. I must say i find that a bit disruptive and surely impolite. Anyway

Continuing on that conversation:

My comment is very serious. You accused me month ago that my account would be used by multiple people. What is not the case. I and other contributers have ask to provide evidence for this allegation. That was month ago. Time to show off your "evidence" for this allegation or to apologize. IQinn (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talk page

I just added these template to these article and i think i am free to add them to these pages in collapsed or un-collapsed form depending on the articles individual content and situation. There is no general rule not to add templates to articles in collapsed form. The template has too many links and the reader would be overwhelmed, in addition they are not direct navigation templates and give just additional information, on click and interested people can open them. I hope i have answered your question. Feel free to reply here on this page if there is still something unclear. Thank you. Regards IQinn (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "There is no general rule not to add templates to articles in collapsed form." Could you please re-read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates again?

You have frequently claimed other contributors were showing ownership behavior. But, how do you think it looks if you act like you can make the same changes to a very large number of articles, without seeking or accepting input from other interested contributors? Geo Swan (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i followed your request and re-read it. No general rule not to collapse templates. Geo could you also please be so kind to re-read WP:OWNERSHIP. Making a lot of edits to articles is not what this policy concerns. No offence but your last paragraph could be seen as an perfect example for ownership behavior specially when such comments are made frequently. Regards IQinn (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to discuss other contributor's concerns over material I contribute, when they are civil and coherent. My contribution history contains instance after instance where I have bent over backwards to offer serious responses to serious queries. I ask you what you think your contribution history shows?

I don't own the material I first contributed. I don't own the articles on the topics I contribute to. And you don't own the material you first contributed. You don't own the versions you prefer, after you have made modifications. You don't own the articles on the topics you contribute to. We are even there.

It is a mistake for you to claim I don't have a voice in the future direction of articles on topics I have contributed to, because of the large number of edits I made to those topics. This was always a mistake, because civil, good-faith, policy-based concerns are welcome from any good faith contributor. It is doubly a mistake now, because you too have made a large number of edits to those topics, so if I were truly disqualified from any voice in those topics, because of a high number of prior edits, that same restriction would apply equally to you.

I repeat, if you think the template is a problem, then please lay out why you think it is a problem. If you secure agreement that the template is a problem, then lets work on securing agreement on a solution to that problem. If we secure agreement to the solution, then lets work on implementing the solution. The first step is the description of the problem. Please lay out why you think it is a problem.

You have stated, at least half a dozen times, that you enjoy collaborating with others, and that you are good at it. Well collaborating requires you to engage in civil discussion with other interested contributors.

If I were to paraphrase your answer to the concern I expressed about your template collapsing do you think it would be fair to say it consisted of "the rules don't say I can't do it my way, so I am going to do it my way, and and I am not going to explain why I think my way is the best way"? If you don't think that is a fair characterization of your position, then I request you to please rephrase your position. Geo Swan (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your post is quite long and concerns dozens of topics and question. As i have done in the past i would like to ask you to limit yourself to a few points and arguments preferable only concerning content issues, that could help to ensure a constructive discussion. I really want to address all your concerns and have a constructive debate. Let me try to answer you according to your paragraphs. I also would like to ask you to answer the my post concerning your allegation that my account is used by multiple person. What is not the case. The post is just about this one here.

I must say i do not really understand this paragraph. Absolute nothing wrong with my edit history. I have never shown any signs of WP ownership. You might provide some diffs of some comments that i made or some instance where i showed ownership behavior according to WP:OWNERSHIP. My remarks here about this topic were civil and clear. I said: "No offence but your last paragraph could be seen as an perfect example for ownership behavior specially when such comments are made frequently." Please have a look at exactly this paragraph nothing else. You are free to dispute that this paragraph shows ownership behavior that would be a basic for further discussion. I think generalized accusation and statements do not help much. Coming to the 2th paragraph. I agree nobody of us own's these articles. 3th, You say "It is a mistake for you to claim I don't have a voice in the future direction of articles on topics I have contributed to, because of the large number of edits I made to those topics." I never made this claim. In contrast i explained you a few times that i is absolutely irrelevant how many edits somebody made that is irrelevant and not one of the ownership behaviors described in WP:OWNERSHIP. 4th, I have given you this explanation here after you have ask me for it. --- You have never provided any valid argument why the templates that i newly added in a collapsed form should have greater value for these specific articles in an un-collapsed form. In addition i have given you good arguments in this discussion here why i added them in a collapsed form to these specific articles. You have not brought forward any counter arguments. --- To sum up the rest of your paragraph. Your characterization is false and there is nothing to re-phrase as i had never this position. I think i have given you my position in this reply. IQinn (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dental care of Guantanamo Bay detainees

Thank you for adding those references. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Al Wafa (Israel)

The article Al Wafa (Israel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Greatest claim to notability seems to be a vague assertion of possible ties to terrorism

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/codename Mark

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/codename Mark, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/codename Mark and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/codename Mark during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fram (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/AMC's errors

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/AMC's errors, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/AMC's errors and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/AMC's errors during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fram (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Ibrahim Zeidan reports Abu Zubaydah image used as an interrogation tool

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Ibrahim Zeidan reports Abu Zubaydah image used as an interrogation tool, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Ibrahim Zeidan reports Abu Zubaydah image used as an interrogation tool and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Ibrahim Zeidan reports Abu Zubaydah image used as an interrogation tool during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fram (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Martin Mubanga

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Martin Mubanga, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Martin Mubanga and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Martin Mubanga during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fram (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Ibrahim Zeidan reports Abu Zubaydah image used as an interrogation tool

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IQinn (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talk page

Please do not add contend that disparage LP. We take BLP issues very serious. I noticed that you just deleted this inappropriate content. That was a good idea. Please be more careful in the future. Regards IQinn (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I have overstruck this message. I dispute that I have disparaged LP.

User:Iqinn contribution history shows dozens of instances when they have accused other contributors of inserting "misleading propaganda" into article space, or lapsing from WP:NPOV, or similar, when all the other contributor had done was make a good faith attempt to cite and summarize or quote a valid WP:RS. These accusations seem to stem from a very serious misunderstandings of our core policies. These accusation seem to stem, in part from a misunderstanding whereby User:Iqinn thinks they can suppress valid WP:RS, when they personally disagree with what the WP:RS has to say.

In this particular message User:Iqinn has not stated which LP they are concerned I have disparaged. But they dozen of similar ill-informed complaints they have made lead me to believe that all they are complaining about here is a neutrally written passage that cites a reference that they personally disagreed with. Geo Swan (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the name of the individual? link to the deleted article. Anyway this inappropriate content and the article has been deleted and that is a good thing. I dispute all the allegation against me that you have posted here. Baseless. Please stay away from personal attacks. You have brought up a lot of allegations against me, for example that my account would be used by multiple people. Despite multiple requests by me and other users you failed to deliver any evidence. Once again, please stay away from personal attacks and concentrate on content issues. Thank you IQinn (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talk page

WRT Arabic names

I see you recently europeanized the default sort order for Ha'il Aziz Ahmad Al Maythal.

I thought you recently acknowledged that no wikipedia contributor owns any topics? I thought you recently acknowledged that no wikipedia contributor should start to make a series of related changes to a wide-ranging set of the articles on the topics we both contribute to without working with the other contributors working on those topics.

I thought you were aware that people with Arabic names do not inherit a last name from a parent the way people with European names do, and that the defaultsort fields of all these articles had been set to be identical with the current name of the article. This was a workaround agreed to at the time by those working on these articles, and other volunteers working on the organization of all biographies. Their organization scheme required every biography to have a defaultsort -- even if it were identical to the name of the article. They agreed that articles on individuals with Arabic names could have defaultsort set to the current article name.

How many articles have you europeanized? Geo Swan (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offence but you are showing again very strong signs of ownership behavior WP:OWNERSHIP. Nobody needs your approval to make changes on article you have written. And just because you have added something to the article does not mean that there is nothing to improve. Please let other people work on them.

Your claims are absolutely wrong. I did not "europeanized the default sort order". I brought them in order with our own standards. Don't we address Arabic people with there surname? Aren't Arabic individuals called by their surname in secondary sources. Do we have special rules for articles that you have written? Do we have special rules for Guantanamo detainees?

Your claims are absolutely wrong we do sort Arabic names by their last name and we have always done so. Your claims are very unusual. Do we really have special rules for Guantanamo detainees??? Than please provide me a diff to this discussions. I would be interested to see that. It would be very unusual to sort Guantanamo detainees with Arabic names different from all others individuals with Arabic names we have in other categories. I follow the common practice for default sort on Wikipedia. In addition the sources address them by there last name and all other secondary sources sort these individuals by there last name. I must say you make it really hard for anybody to find out about these detainees. Don't you want our users to find them and found out about them? This is a mess and needs to be fixed quickly. IQinn (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zabihullah Mujahid

The entire content of the article I deleted, and the only edit, was:

A Taliban spokesman.

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

I don't really think this is worth merging into the history, but let me know if you feel strongly about it. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would still appreciate a merge of the full revision history. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit restored. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Abd al-Rahman Bin Khalil Bin Abdallah Nur

The article Abd al-Rahman Bin Khalil Bin Abdallah Nur has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Kind of misleading. It is not clear who is the subject of this biography. Incoming links claim he is Afghan Noor Ahmad (ISN) 580). The article claims he is Saudi and the DIA searches for him. According to the information in the article he is not in Guantanamo. The move template suggest he is Yusif Khalil Abdallah Nur (ISN 73). Big mess that's very hard to fix. The original creator might move it to user space. If it stays like that than all incoming links that claim he is Noor Ahmad (ISN) 580) must be deleted and the article needs to make clear who is the subject of this biography.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. IQinn (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talk page

Feel free to change the template in any way you want. Regards IQinn (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talk page

(WRT this use of the prod template...) No problem, perfect rational and use of the tag. Regards IQinn (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hassan Anvar v. George W. Bush

The article Hassan Anvar v. George W. Bush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

almost entirely based on primary sources / not a notable case on it's own

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. IQinn (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore safe house listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lahore safe house. Since you had some involvement with the Lahore safe house redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). IQinn (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda safe house

You have created about 180 redirects to the article Al-Qaeda safe house. I think, (because there have been some merging and editing in the past) some of them might have become misleading or irrelevant. Could you please review these redirects and delete (db-author) possible problematic ones? Regards - IQinn (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If these redirects are useful to anyone they comply with WP:User pages. They are useful to me, so they comply with WP:User pages. They could be useful to other contributors too. You haven't asked any meaningful questions about any of these redirects, nor have you named any that you think are misleading or irrelevant. Are you actually consulting any of these pages? Geo Swan (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Guantanamo captives leaving after their debriefing by Afghan security officials on 2003-03-25.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Guantanamo captives leaving after their debriefing by Afghan security officials on 2003-03-25.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Badr_Mohammed_Nasser_al-Shihri.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Badr_Mohammed_Nasser_al-Shihri.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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Icebreaker Kingfisher

The article Icebreaker Kingfisher has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One reference only with no claim to notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 20:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Al-ighatha al-khaira

The article Al-ighatha al-khaira has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of such an organization, only ref is dead.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 20:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirects in userspace

This is a request filed as a result of the MFD on your enormous userspace file section. I didn't close the MFD (although I would have closed it as a no consensus, due to the astonishing number of files which were included in the MFD request), but there is a lot of dross that needs to be cleared from your userspace. I would request that you go through and request {{db-u1}} all of the redirects in your userspace. You currently have over 1200 files in your userspace, which has to be some sort of record, and many of them are simply redirects from one location in your userspace to another, which is both needless and confusing. Clearing out the accumulated junk will help eliminate some of the repeated discussions of your userpages. It's hard to count the redirects, but it appears that there are over 50, which is far too many. If you decline to do so, I will probably take this to AN/I or RFC/U, because the sheer number of pages in your userspace is far beyond the limits of what is appropriate under WP:USER, especially the number of userfied deleted articles (WP:FAKEARTICLE), almost all of which are articles about WP:BLP1E individuals connected in one way or another with the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. You are veering into soapboxing, which is specifically disallowed. Horologium (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Abdul Razaq (Taliban Deputy Minister of Defense)

The article Abdul Razaq (Taliban Deputy Minister of Defense) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is purely based on primary sources. No reliable independent sources discuss this person. basically, this is a piece of hearsay, linkinga name (thankfully a common one) to terrorism without any independent confirmation or even discussion. No Google News, Books or Scholar hits. Fails WP:BLP badly.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a google books reference. Geo Swan (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afd notification

Sorry. I assumed the same person who created HMS Justinian was responsible for all the others. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Debat, Hollywood or what ?

Hi, Geo Swan ! Long time I've haven't been here... & I'm not that much around right now. Perhaps you'll be interested in the quite strange edit reversing which has been going around Alexis Debat since, I don't know, perhaps 3 years. Seems some guy really doesn't like some public things being "screamed out" on Wikipedia. I already did a sockpuppet claim here, which was accorded, but the guy keeps making other single-users sockpuppets: seems like he really doesn't like one or two sourced things on the (lousily written, I grant you) page. Perhaps it'll interest you, I just can't manage to watch the page every single day like the guy does. Cheers! Tazmaniacs (talk)

Proposed deletion of Majed Al-Shammari

The article Majed Al-Shammari has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Take your pick.

Saudi: Maji Afas Radhi Al Shimri (ISN 181) released Nov. 4, 2005. Kuwaiti: Abd Al Aziz Sayer Uwain Al Shammeri (ISN 217) Nov. 2, 2005. The BBC source is already in al Shammeri's article. And the Saudi Embassy source with the name mix up is not even worth to move. So that this mostly OR article can be deleted. (I recommend without redirect as the name is quite a mix up based on one very weak source.)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. IQinn (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]