User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2015-10

This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

If you are considering initiating an xfd on material I started

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

Re: Church Street

Apologies for the (very) late reply. The deleted version is only related to the street in Norfolk, Virginia. I don't think the concerns for the original deletion was addressed. If you are looking at the street in Toronto, there is no content to salvage for you. - Mailer Diablo 22:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Galicia deliving humanitarian supplies to Iraq.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Galicia deliving humanitarian supplies to Iraq.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heriberto Hernandez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Coyne

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sarah Coyne, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Sarah_Elizabeth_Coyne.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False positive. Geo Swan (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sarah Coyne for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sarah Coyne is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Coyne until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USCGC Joseph Napier (WPC-1115), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Napier. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 25 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Sarah Coyne page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why those voicing a delete should keep their hands off an article at least until it survives AFD

I was going to leave you a note on User talk:Freshacconci, until I saw that contributor had made the unusual choice to stop archiving their talk page. So I am going to leave my message to them on my talk page, and merely provide a link to it on their talk page.

@Freshacconci:, you excised a paragraph, from the article on Sarah Coyne, with the edit summary "this is a PhD thesis and is only referenced to itself; not appropriate". I reverted your excision. I have never come across a challenge to a reference's RS status, simply because it was a PhD thesis. Your assertion that it "is only referenced to itself" -- are you asserting the author didn't cite their sources for the conclusions about Coyne and Trudeau? If so, could you go back and look more closely? She cited political cartoons and articles by political columnists. Is it possible that you unintentionally slipped into editorializing, and excised the reference because you didn't like it?

By excising an innocuous passage from the article, AND voicing a delete opinion, I think you are engaging in a practice that erodes collegiality and triggers distrust. I have written about my concerns with this practice before. By long standing tradition, when an article is challenged, those who think a challenged article merits inclusion in the wikipedia are encouraged to try to address the concerns raised by those who voiced delete opinions, by making improvements to the article, during the AFD period.

Policy doesn't preclude those arguing for delete from editing articles, after they voiced delete. And, when I have raised this issue on ANI, in the past, the most common response has been some variation of -- "but the nominator might think they have to remove obvious court-case triggering slander!"

Without regard to what policy might say, I strongly recommend against this practice, because, to the person who is trying to improve the article, so it survives AFD, this kind of edit is a trial, and it can be very easy for the article's defender to see the kind of edit you made as a kind of bad faith editing.

Please think about this kind of edit this way -- even if, for the sake of argument, there is only one defender of the article; they are the only person who thinks the article can be improved to the point where it survives AFD. When their attempts to improve the article are reverted they are likely to think the AFD was not a fair process. They are likely to think that, if only those pesky people hadn't reverted their good faith attempts to improved the article it might have survived its AFD.

So, why not let the deluded defender(s) have a free hand in their attempts to improve the article? Then, if the article still ends up being deleted, at least they can't think it was deleted due to deletionists edit-warring with them. If you think the article might survive AFD solely because someone slipped in bad references, bad passages, and that other participants in the AFD won't look as closely as you, and won't realize that those references, or passages, were tricky, counter-policy, possibly bad faith -- why not voice this concern in the AFD discussion, rather than excising the passage.

Note, I am not accussing you of bad faith. I assume that the points above never occurred to you. I have seen a few other people engage in this practice who were unquestionably motivated by bad faith. I have encountered nominators who can't stand the idea of their AFD failing, and work hard to damage the article, to make sure it is deleted, and I have encountered contributors who vandalize and engage in edit-warring over article due to their own private, POV agenda.

There was an article, a number of years ago, where my attempts to add material to improve an article were thwarted by a full half-dozen self-righteous POV pushers. So, I strongly urge you to consider not both editing an article, and voicing a delete opinion, at the same time. If the article survives AFD? Go ahead and make good faith edits. Geo Swan (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

Hi

I think we have a mutual friend in Norm Marcon. If so, I have nothing but the greatest admiration for you. My office is down the hall from him. All the best -- Samir 22:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know a Norm Marcon. Maybe I'll meet him one day. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]