User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2007-October-to-December

User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2004
User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2005
User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2006-January-to-June
User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2006-July-to-Oct
User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2006-October-to-December
User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2007-January-to-June
User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2007-July-to-September
User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2007-October-to-December

Good catch

Looks like it was 1036. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Bearian's RfA

Hi, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed 63 to 1. I hope that I am doing a good job so far. Bearian 21:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Thuraya_1120RentalKit400340.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Thuraya_1120RentalKit400340.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:SolarPort_ThurayaCharging_306346.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:SolarPort_ThurayaCharging_306346.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

courtesy

I don't think we have ever interacted before.

I have noticed that even though we should all be well aware of the wikipedia's policies about refraining from personal attacks, being civil, and assuming our correspondents are writing from a postion of good faith, a great many people ignore these policies when they contribute comments in the deletion fora.

You called Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda a "hit piece/attack article".

I write on controversial topics. Consequently I make a special effort to fully comply with WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NOR. I don't expect to succeed 100% of the time. I think I do a pretty good. But because I don't expect to succeed 100% of the time, I make an effort to take every civil, specific challenge seriously

I think I deserve to have the effort i put into complying with these policies matched by those who have a concern about my contributions.

I think I deserve to have those who have a concern show me the courtesy to assume good faith. IMO calling someone else's contributions a "hit piece" is a serious violation of WP:AGF

I think I deserve to have those who have a concern to be cite the specific passages that triggered their concern. General comments, like calling a whole article a "hit piece" is irresponsible. That comment of yours is so unspecific you leave your readers to guess as to whether you think the article is a "hit piece" against the captives, or a "hit piece" against their accusers.

If there are specific passages you think you can argue lapse from WP:NPOV, then cite them, explain yourself. If you can't explain why you think something is biased I think you should ask yourself if your perception of bias really means the aritlce is biased. Frankly, it has been my experience that a lot of those who are convinced my contributions are biased, if they explain themselves, leave me with the impression that their perception of a biased POV is due to them viewing the article through their own unexamined biased preconceptions -- and that the article is actually not biased at all.

I don't get that many challenges. When I ask my challengers to be civil and specific:

1. some of my correspondents have been able to over civil responses, and sometimes they helped me realize I had allow a lapse from policy ot slip out. When they help me realize I made a lapse I openly acknowledge it, and I fix it.
2. some of my correspondents offerec civil responses, which showed that their concern was based on misconceptions.
3. some don't respond at all;
4. some respond by wikilawyering, by irresponsible use of wikitags, by personal attacks, by wikistalking -- some people can't stand being asked to explain their reasoning.

I hope you will offer me a civil, serious, specific reply.

I am going to remind you that a perceived POV is not supposed to be one of the criteria we offer for deletion. A perceived POV is supposed to trigger a discussion about the perceived POV, on the talk page.

Peace Geo Swan 08:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Geo, nice to meet you. I seriously did it mean to impugn you in any way, shape, or form. My feeling is that labeling any person a terrorist, using only a singular source or primary source (here, the unreliable DoD), simply repeats the point of view of the DoD, and unfortunately doesn't seem to square with me per BLP. It's not the list itself, nor any of your contributions--if multiple sources or multiple governments labeled them as terrorists, I'd be fine with it. Using just the words of one government is the problem. It merely parrots and repeats the DoD's stance, and we can't give them (or the UK government, or the Saudi government, or whomever) any special weight or value. If we do this will either be an advocacy piece, or a hit piece/attack article, depending on the reader's point of view, and nothing more. As such, the article in it's current form (and name) is unacceptable.

Rename, multiple sources required. Probably should never exist at this current name, as it could be seen as an endorsement of the DoD stance, which we will not do.

I'll add this reply to the AfD as well. • Lawrence Cohen 12:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Afghan refugees

Hello,

Thanks for your message :-), actually I am not from that area. Personally speaking I don't think "Afghan" should be replaced by "Afghanistani", Afghanistan liteally means means land of the Afghans. I am of but not entirely sure why the idea arose that Afghan should only be used to described ethnic Pashtuns, whilst Afghanistani (which etymologically is derived from Afghan), literally speaking "Afghanistani refugee" means refugee of the land of Afghans.

In English speaking countries, and this is the English wikipedia, they are almost universally known as "Afghan refugees" (correct me if I am wrong), originally the article was called Muhajir Afghan, I moved it to Afghan refugees for this reason.

After moving the article, I thought I'd link any articles with Afghan refugees or relating to Afghan refugees to this article as the Afghan refugee article seems rather undeveloped for a topic of its nature - there is much that can be added about refugee camps in neighbouring countries, distribution etc, the article was created in January 2006 perhaps if it had been moved earlier it would have a lot more content.

Anyway, I'm going a bit of topic there, but basically I would oppose "Afghanistani refugees", a google search of "Afghanistani refugees" has only 245 results, whilst "Afghan refugees" yields 469,000 results, it is logical to go with the most common usuage, which is why I moved the article in the first place.

As suggested, I have also created the category:Afghan refugees.

Regards
Pahari Sahib, 14:12, 16 October 2007 (GMT)

Ah. OK. Well, I am not from the area either. But, if I recall their arguments:

• The current boundaries of Afghanistan demark areas that contain multiple ethnic groups.
• The Uzbeks and Tajiks, the second and third most populous groups -- outnumber the Pashtuns.
• Traditionally the land of the Afghans only referred to the area inhabited by the Pashtuns -- which, if I am not mistaken, also encompasses Pakistan's "tribal areas" -- Waziristan for example actually crossing the border into the area around Tora Bora.
• The non-Pashtun areas of what is now Afghanistan are largely composed of Shia moslems, not Sunni Muslims.
• Tne non-Pashtun areas of what is now Afghanistan largely speak Farsi, or a Turkic language.
• The non-Pashtun areas of what is now Afghanistan are culturally distinct.
• The history of the non-Pashtun areas of what is now Afghanistan include periods when they were independent, and periods when they were on the opposited side of imperial borders from the Pashtun area.
• Prominent citizens of Afghanistan, who are not from the Pashtun ethnic group, choose to refer to themselves as Afghanistanis, not Afghans.

I am not sure I got all those arguments right. I'll check with those two correspondents.

Glad to see you create Category:Afghan refugees. I'll start using it.

See you around!

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

With respect to the third comment "Traditionally the land of the Afghans only referred to the area inhabited by the Pashtuns" - Pashtuns nationalists refer to these areas as Pashtunistan or Pakhtunkhwa (or other similar variants).

The last point is the key point however, "Prominent citizens of Afghanistan, who are not from the Pashtun ethnic group, choose to refer to themselves as Afghanistanis, not Afghans."

If it is the case that a majority of non-Pashtuns describe themselves as Afghanistanis rather than Afghans (and this is cited) then this becomes a valid argument. Even if this true, I personally don't think the article name should be changed, perhaps the lead section could mention this, however I #think# most of the Afghan refugees were Pashtuns who would have described themselves as Afghans.

Regards :-)
Pahari Sahib, 20:05, 16 October 2007 (GMT)

Thanks for your reply. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting changing the name of Afghan refugees or Category:Afghan refugees. I've been trying to get more information about this issue. Thanks for the info on Pashtunistan. I added a couple of Afghans to the category. I'll add more, as I have time.

Cheers! Geo Swan 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy

Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

My concern is that you're not writing about a notable list here -- you're essentially reprinting the list. If the list is notable and this becomes a summary style article, that's one thing. If it's reprinting the list and attributing it to the DoD instead of talking about the list and indicating that legal scholars have attributed it to the DoD, that's advocacy and breaches NPOV in my opinion. That appears to be where the list is at this point. Erechtheus 22:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your civil reply!

Well, first, I believe the Seton Hall list is a notable list.

If you look at the study, you will see that it is the Seton Hall team who named the list "Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda". I thought using their name was appropriate. I think using their name frees me of a violation of WP:NPOV. Could I have called it something like: The Seton Hall compilation of the Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda. Or I could have called the article something like The Seton Hall compilation of organizations the Defense Department suspects have ties to terrorism.

Why didn't I pick one of those names? It never occurred to me to call it anything other than what the Seton Hall scholars called it.

I thought the text of the article made clear that the list was the Seton Hall scholar's compilation and interpolation. I didn't think anyone who read the article was going to mistake it for a DoD list. But if you think that is a concern, by all means, let's address it.

If the article survives {{afd}} please feel free to conduct a poll, or take some other step that complies with policy, to give the article a new name.

Did you have any other concerns?

Thanks againt for your civil reply!

Cheers! Geo Swan 23:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure from the discussion how this is going to end. If I may offer a bit of constructive criticism, I must say your particular style of response, while effective for these user talk conversations, really confuse the issue in AfD due to the formatting if nothing else. I'd hate to be the closing admin who has to figure out what is going on. At any rate, the larger point I want to make is that the next step appears to either be deletion and creation as a more suitable article or keeping and fixing the article. Either way, I'll try to keep this on my radar and see what sort of help I can be in that process. Erechtheus 03:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to try to explain yourself more fully?

In response to your question about "a BLP accident wating to happen". My views are clearer on the relevant ANI, but in a nutshell. Those people on that list, a list who's title categorically states that these people are terrorists, have not been legally tried, sentenced or had the allegations against them proven by anybody. There is no proof whatsoever that they are terrorists. The only references given are directly from the people making the (unproven) allegations. It is one thing to have a vandal libelling someone, it's another thing totally to have a full article doing so. Given that there is no proof of the assertions (speaking about the article rather than the government), the article is in effect libelling those people on the list. So it's not so much an accident as a amjor train wreck. Just because the US can flout human rights doesn't mean that WP can. ---- WebHamster 00:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I haven't blanked/deleted anything. What you thought about WP:BOLD doesn't necessarily reflect what others see. Perhaps you should read the first sentence of the article. As you ask, what you seem to be missing is a wider, less parochial perspective. I hope that helps answer your queries. ---- WebHamster 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Army regulations as reliable sources

Thank you for input. I have been involved in a mediation where an editor appears to be rather selective in his use of sources, so that any unit veteran's citation of army regulations that tend to support an official name of the unit as 3rd United States Infantry Regiment is an indication of bias to him. For suggesting that a unit veteran is a primary source according to the plain language of his citation of WP:NPOV against several of us, we were called on the carpet for mediation, and since my last edit on the mediation discussion page several days ago, there has been no movement one way or another. I agree that army regs should be credible to the limits of the topics they address, but an inability of the other party to admit as much appears to have caused a stall... Hotfeba 21:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Faisalabad

Hello,

I don't know that much about the smaller institutions in Pakistan, other than they are not government funded. Basically for some people in Pakistan, it is not always convenient, especially in rural areas, to attend goverment schools/colleges - when they may need to earn a livelihood as well.

There is also the problem of the quality of education in some of the govenment run schools, see Education in Pakistan#Private_Institutions, some people pay for private education.

However there are various private organistaions allowing the poor and illiterate to attend, usually religous organisations, the funding of which can vary. An institution that provides pays for living costs, board and tuition will prove very attractive to poorer people who've received an incomplete education.

You might also want to see Madrassas in Pakistan.

Incidently Faisalabad is not a Pashtun area, it is in the western Punjab and it is mainly Punjabi.

Regards :-)
Pahari Sahib, 22:44, 17 October 2007 (GMT)

Patriot Act Terrorist Exclusion List

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Patriot Act Terrorist Exclusion List, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.bccvisalaw.com/news/terrorist_exclusion_list.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 10:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium

Would you be willing to do a quick writeup somewhere here about your experience moving from Wikipedia to Citizendium? It would be useful for anyone else considering the move and might help folks better understand the practical implications of moving as opposed to the theoretical ones. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As you requested I wrote up a note about my first impressions of the citizendium.

Cheers! Geo Swan 14:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! As time passes and if things change, I know a lot of folks would like to hear about how well your experience turns out. It sounds as if you've just started, the real meat will probably come about from reading your thoughts after a few weeks of work on it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll be sure to keep it up to date.

You are an administrator? Did you take a look at my explanation as to why I am thinking of defecting?

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Haji Wazir

Hello,

In reply to your comment, the reason I moved Wazir to Haji Wazir was not to try to correct his name or add a title to his name, but because the usual meaning of Wazir is Vizier. As there is also a Wazir (tribe), I though it best to convert the Wazir page to a WP:DAB page. Sorry )-: ... but I would oppose a move back to the original page as Haji Wazir is a relatively obscure Guantanamo inmate, the vast majority of people searching for Wazir on wikipedia will not be looking for this guy :-) - Unless of course somehow some dramatic evidence comes to light showing that he was the secret lynchpin of Al Qa'ida ;-)

But seriously, your article refers to him as "Haji Wazir", so moving to Haji Wazir seemed most logical. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) does state

“ don't add qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation; ”

Does he have any other names? Perhaps you could move the page to Wazir (Guantanamo inmate) or something similar?

Regards

Pahari Sahib , 04:38, 19 October 2007 (GMT)

That Wazir is a version of vizier is a good point. There is another Guantanamo captive named that the DoD calls Haji Shahzada. I stripped off the Haji and created shahzada (disambiguation) because shahzada, apparently means "son of a shah".

There are about three dozen Guantanamo captives whose articles are known as [[''Name'' Guantanamo detainee ''nnn'']].

Does he have other names? Probably. There are four captives on the official list named Wazir. We can't know, for sure, which one of these men he is, or even if he has another entry on the list that does not contain Wazir.

The truth is JTF-GTMO did an absolutely shockingly incompetent job of maintaining the records for their captives. I decided not to cover up their errors by interpolating what they really meant when the names they used were inconsistent. Technically this is speculation, and a violation of the no original research policy.

Rather than Wazir (Guantanamo detainee) I would prefer Wazir (unnumbered Guantanamo detainee) -- which is what I did with Abdur Rahim (unnumbered Guantanamo detainee). There is also Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo

Cheers! Geo Swan 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi moving the page to Wazir (unnumbered Guantanamo detainee) is fine with with me.

Regards

Pahari Sahib, 23:36, 22 October 2007 (GMT)

npov?

So, can I ask if you, yourself thought the article failed to comply with NPOV?

Theanks Geo Swan 05:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree clearly is POV article fails NPOV just put NPOV right at the top did not remove it.NPOV is still there Pharaoh of the Wizards 12:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fahed Nasser Mohamed

Fahed Nasser Mohamed, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Fahed Nasser Mohamed satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Fahed Nasser Mohamed during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 23:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Zahid Al-Sheikh

Zahid Al-Sheikh, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Zahid Al-Sheikh satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Zahid Al-Sheikh during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abdullah Gulam Rasoul

Abdullah Gulam Rasoul, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Abdullah Gulam Rasoul satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Gulam Rasoul and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Abdullah Gulam Rasoul during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Refs

Hello! Yes, I removed these refs not because the link went dead (I fully agree with the policy you stated to me) but because they could not be linked to anywhere in particular to the article (thus had nothing to do in the footnotes section). Perhaps they could be put in "external links"; but how could one consider adding in "external link" a dead link? In any cases, I hope we'll be watchfull about citing Alexis Debat now... Cheers! Tazmaniacs 17:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep on AFDs

I notice you called for a speedy keep on three recent AFDs: 1, 2, and 3. I'm not sure which of the four speedy keep requirements these AFDs meet and would be obliged if you would revisit your comment at that AFD and either specify the valid reason this article should be speedily kept or change your comment accordingly. Stifle (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

copyright violation Hutia

Thanks for informing me about this. Yes, I am the photographer and this picture was taken by me in the Stuttgart Zoo (you can see clearly the cage walls behind the animal). Can you inform the publishers about the copyright violation? Thanks! jensflorian (no account in english wikipedia) 134.2.188.3 06:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

npov

Regarding WP:NPOV -- I have mainly written on controverial topics for the last two of my three years on the wikipedia. I know those topics are controversial I make a special effort to comply with WP:NPOV, and the other core policies.

I don't expect to success 100% of the time. We are all human. I don't think everyone is going to succeed 100% of the time. So I make a special effort to contact everyone who has stated, or hinted, that they have a POV or other policy concern about my contributions, and as I ask them to to make the effort to try to help me understand their concern.

I ask my correspondents to try to be civil and specific about what triggered their concern.

You have made clear that you think some of my contributions have lapsed from compliance with {{npov}}. And I would appreciate it if you would make an effort to be specific about your concerns.

Cheers! Geo Swan 22:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have updated my comments on the deletion discussions. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I pointed out in one of the {{afd}} that the deletion documents used to be very clear that a perception of PV was not supposed to result in deletion. The first step recommended used to be to raise the concern on the article's talk page... This is still the policy, correct? Geo Swan 22:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the theory, but not always the practice. Sometimes articles which have irreparable POV problems or which are unable, for the time being, to be converted into articles that are both NPOV and properly verifiable, are deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD concerns

Hi there. Yes, I must admit that I was wrong (a) to make an inappropriate comment about an article as "afreakin' mess" and (b) to cite WP:NPOV as a reason to delete (without an explanation). For those two things, I am deeply sorry and I apoligise. You deserve a complete response, for which I will start here and now. I will make a more concerted effort not to do anything remotely like that. I think, underneath your complaints, you also voice complaints that I also violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Well, perhaps so, but I assure you that those were not intentional, and I will be more conscious of such poor assumptions on my part. While my language was inappropriate, I stand by my other reasonings. If a POV is incurable, that is, so integral to an article, it has to go. POV is one of the pillars of WP. If all the opinion is stripped away from an article, leaving only a stub without context, perhaps it ought to be rewritten from scratch. I am taking serious responsibility for all my deletions; I have created a user sub-page for that purpose. I am a fairly new admin, and am taking everything I do seriously and carefully. When I blocked an editor unfairly, and when I was unsure about when to close a controversial AfD, I reported these issues to WP:AN myself. I can empathize completely with you, and all your hard work in creating articles, having had significant work of mine deleted. It is a risk of editing here. The particular one to which you refer would have required too much work to fix. I was not alone in pointing out that it was not a notable topic, that its sourcing was weak, that it was of special interest to a small band of persons, and that its technical language would require expert attention to clean up. I am sorry that this has happened to you, and that I was part of it. If you wish, I can post a request on WP:AN for another admin to recreate the page as a user-sub-page. How may I solve this problem? Bearian 14:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

I reviewed our discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bearian, and note that you did not take a stance, so I forgot to thank you for participating. I stand by my answer, which is in essence that after about 6 months' learning curve, I will stand for review or recall. To respond more fully to my reasoning process:

1. From WP:LIST, a guideline: "The contents of a list should be obvious. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's selection criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list. Review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for further clarification. See also WP:NOT#DIR (Wikipedia is not a directory) for the suitability of material to make a list about in an encyclopedical context." The article, at least the version when I read it, was essentially a long list of persons and their affiliate organizations that had been accused of terrorism by some unnamed persons. It was not clear, prima facie, who had compiled the list or what was the inclusion process. Perhaps that was your point -- that some unnameable government official had complied a random, irrational list, but it was not clear to me when I read it at the time; I'm still not sure.
2. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, ... or memorial site. (Policy shortcuts: WP:NOT#BLOG, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, ... WP:NOT#MEMORIAL.) ... You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not: Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia."

1. From WP:OR: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies: Our original major content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles, and demands that Wikipedia balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field. Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources. Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately. NPOV, V, and NOR are Wikipedia's three principal content policies. Since NPOV, V, and NOR complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. " (Italics added for emphasis.)

I hope that is helpful for understanding my reasoning process. Bearian 15:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Cite to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda. Bearian 15:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN

I self-reported this incident at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Bearian 15:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

prod?

A comment I left on User talk:Stifle.

Anyone is entitled to add a {{prod}} tag to an article for any reason (see WP:PROD and WP:DEL#REASON), so as such my use of WP:COATRACK to propose or support a deletion is valid. Equally, however, anyone is entitled to remove the prod tag if they dispute the deletion, or have the deletion reversed at WP:DRV without question, and you're welcome to do that, in which case I will probably list the article at WP:AFD.

I reserve my position as to whether I consider you a POV-pusher; I would just remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

If you and someone else have an issue with the conduct of another user you can raise a request for comment or use the dispute resolution procedure. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review/Content review

Hi. Per your request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review, the contents of Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda have been temporarily userfied to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda. The contents represent the last version of the article prior to deletion, with categories & maintenance tags removed. I hope this is helpful. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

I think a key reason so many Gitmo articles get nominated for deletion is due simply to the outlay of the articles. Users are greeted by Abdel Ghalib Ahmad Hakim is a citizen of Yemen, held in extrajudicial detention in the United States Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, in Cuba. Hakim's Guantanamo detainee ID number is 686. American intelligence analysts estimate Hakim was born 1979, in Ta'iz, Yemen., and then a bunch of "legal gibberish" about his tribunals, etc.

I would strongly recommend spending a day or two rewriting the style of these articles to say "A citizen of Yemen, Abdel Ghalib Ahmad Hakim was a studnet of Salafia University before being captured, and held in extrajudicial detention in the United States Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, in Cuba.Hakim's Guantanamo detainee ID number is 686. American intelligence analysts estimate Hakim was born 1979, in Ta'iz, Yemen. Officials allege he trained at the al-Farouk camp in Kandahar, though he claims he had never been to Afghanistan before being transferred to custody there after his arrest by Pakistani officials when he entered the country to study the Quran. Alleged to have ties to both al-Qaeda and Jamat al-Tabighligh" and then getting into the "legal gibberish" of sourcing it all, the ARBs, etcetera. It's the intros, they look too formulaic and don't offer anything "interesting" about the individual as it stands right now - and most people don't bother digging through the ARB information to find that interesting information that makes him an individual, not just a name on a file. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are right. But unless I (1) get authorized to get a bot to do that editing, It is going to take more like a month or two. A couple of weeks ago I changed the instance of the image of the trailer from transcluded to inline -- a much simpler change, and a smaller number of articles. It took me a whole weekend.

Thanks for your advice and other help.

A month or two ago, maybe in a previous {{afd}}, when I saw that peopel were still saying the article were all "identical" I realized that those {{afd}} responsdents idea of reading the article was merely to read the first screenful. Did you know I am trying out the Citizendium?

Cheers! Geo Swan 20:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab

An article that you have been involved in editing, Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Suspected terrorists alleged to be associated with Tablighi Jamaat

Category:Suspected terrorists alleged to be associated with Tablighi Jamaat has been nominated for deletion; you are invited to comment in the deletion discussion located here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I just want to let you know that I replied to your comment at my talk page. I have no particular preference as to where we continue the discussion (there or here), so please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Abdullah Gulam Rasoul

The main things that seem lacking, unless I'm missing something, are non-trivial mentions of Abdullah Gulam Rasoul in news articles, books, journal articles, or other secondary sources. I don't think only mentions in primary sources are sufficient, since digging through primary sources to construct new summaries of history is original historical research, and we should only summarize existing research, not conduct our own. I don't think the allegations have to be independently "proven" true, just that we need to be able to cite something other than a raw transcript as having at the very least reported them. I think we already pretty routinely apply this to most areas of history: for example, if the only source for a particular bill were the Congressional Record, we wouldn't have an article on it; we only have articles on bills like the Antiquities Act that have been written about elsewhere. --Delirium 18:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Guantanamo AfDs

I have replied on User talk:Fram, so that other interested editors can read it there to. Fram 21:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living people policy and deletion complications

Thanks for contacting me about this. I can only comment as an indvidual administrator and what I say may not have wide acceptance; you may wish to raise the issue on the Biogaphies of living people noticeboard or as a general request for comment. However, as you ask for my views, there's no harm in me giving them.

It is not unusual to find two or more Wikipedia policies in conflict with each other; in fact it happens all the time. Very often the reaction will depend on the detailed circumstances so expressing a simple opinion about how to resolve the problem is difficult.

There is emerging consensus that articles which are biographies of living people who are clearly notable can be deleted after an articles for deletion discussion if the reason for their notability is rooted in a controversial claim, and the claim is unsourced or poorly sourced. This is a sort of conjunction of WP:BLP and deletion policy: if, while removing a BLP violation we remove everything of substance to the article, then it must be liable to deletion as a whole.

Our problem here is what constitutes a reliable source. In general Wikipedia tries to avoid being prescriptive but there are lots of guidelines about what denotes reliability and it is agreed that reliability comes with rigorous compilation, thorough checking and a source that has no vested interest. Controversial claims which are contained in sources which meet those criteria are certainly fit to report. It is not our job to make sure they are correct, but it is our job to make sure that all significant viewpoints including those which dispute the claims are reported in the article.

I looked a little into why you might raise this and I guess it's connected with the AfDs for Guantanamo Bay detainees. Without expressing a particular opinion which would more appropriately fit in an individual AfD, my observations about them would go like this:

1. Not all Guantanamo Bay detainees are notable, but detainees are likely to be notable if they are accused of especially serious things.
2. The more prominent detainees will have received coverage in the world's media, which may be acceptable sourcing.
3. A detainee who has not been found guilty by a tribunal remains only accused.
4. A finding of guilt by a tribunal does not in and of itself mean that the article can be written as though of someone unambiguously guilty. The tribunals have themselves been criticised over their method of operation.
5. An accusation against a detainee is by that very fact a controversial claim which brings in WP:BLP.
6. While the papers issued by the US Military Authorities are reliable sources for what is being alleged against a detainee, they are not reliable sources for the allegation being true because they are written from a partisan perspective. The US Military Authorities believe those in Guantanamo Bay to be guilty which is why they are holding them.
7. It is difficult to write a neutral article when the only reliable source for the key reason for the subject's notability is partisan.
8. It is much more acceptable if there are additional or alternative sources independent of the sort of source mentioned above. It is even more acceptable if the other sources have undertaken their own investigation (eg a newspaper or magazine investigation into whether the charges are true).

Does this answer your policy concerns? If you are unhappy with the closing of AfDs, then there is always a deletion review to consider. Sam Blacketer 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to email

I got your email last weekend; I've just been too busy/distracted to reply. I think these articles have stirred controversy for multiple reasons. One reason was that they were on a controversial topic - that was never an appropriate reason for eliminating the articles. Another was that a lot of them don't have enough meat on the bones to merit individual articles - what was always a reason for merging instead of deleting. When the series started WP:BLP was an essay; it has grown to policy, and is now generally accepted (with the usual disagreements about just what it means and what to do about it).

I've long thought that the articles mostly deserved merging - and this was before BLP was more than an essay. I've held this belief for a combination of not having meat on the bones and on the individuals having limited notability as individuals.

You might think about the treatment given to those who died in 9/11; the community shuffled most of the articles off to a specialized 9/11 wiki and wrote WP:NOT#MEMORIAL into policy, because as individuals they were generally not notable. (This is before my time, but the analogy seems quite close and it is on the opposite side of the same controversy.) GRBerry 21:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This was an essay that changed to a policy? Thanks. I wondered where this new initiative had come from. I looked at the history, and saw that the initial posts were years ago. The debate is now over? Even so I'd like to look at this debate.

Thanks for your advice about merging. I know I have mentioned this before. I didn't ignore your advice. In my private workspace I have worked on a union list -- useful to me, maybe not useful to others. Close to 1000 edits to my first attempt. I had to split it into eleven separate lists that I transcluded together when they got too long to edit. I believe I have mentioned to you before that I do not see how that union list could replace the individual articles.

I think there are very important differences between the 9-11 survivors, and 9-11 victims and the Guantanamo Bay captives. Basically, there is no controversy over most of the 9-11 survivors and victims, whereas there are several huge controversies around the Guantanamo captives. Apples and Oranges.

Thanks for your reply.

Cheers! Geo Swan 14:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bar associations on detainees

Hi again. I have found some sources for general information about US bar associations and their stances on the whole issue of detainees. You may cut and paste (use the source code):
"The American Bar Association's House of Delegates on August 13 (2007) endorsed a recommendation co-sponsored by the New York State Bar Association that calls for the United States government to meet its legal and moral obligations by treating detainees humanely and in accordance with international law." "This proposal was needed to make it explicitly clear that the rule of law applies to all branches of government, even when government agencies are operating on foreign soil...." said Katherine Grant Madigan, New York State Bar Association president. In her remarks on the floor of the ABA House, Madigan closed by quoting Founding Father James Madison, writing in Federalist Paper Number 51: "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."

References

Bearian 21:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Bearian 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

Hey, the comment I posted was sarcasm. The profanity simply added emphasis to the sarcasm. There is a distinct separation between humor and civility violations. And I happen to be a US citizen so maybe your style and perception of English writing is different from mine. Next time, don't take my comments so seriously, and remember that a contribution is a contribution. User:Color-Copycat —Preceding comment was added at 03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC) I didn't say US citizens are exempt. I said that American English is different in sentence structure and grammar when compared to other forms of English. What were you talking about with explaining? It wasn't very clear. User:Color-Copycat —Preceding comment was added at 04:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Churchill maps

07-Nov-2007: I am working on a mapping template to highlight cities on polar-skewed maps, such as for Churchill in Canada. The map of Canada states "Manitoba" with the article name "Churchill, Manitoba" so that is why I selected that map. It maps the area of Manitoba for people who wonder where Churchill fits, relative to the whole province. -Wikid77 20:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment.

No one can bat 1.000; I nominate many articles for deletion, particularly one-liners. They may end up being notable when someone does much research to find that out and the article improves. They may end up borderline being kept anyway. But, unsourced one-line articles do little to better the encyclopedia - indeed, many of these may otherwise be speedily deleted in their current state. Requiring a nominator to be certain that an article will be deleted is gaming the system. Thanks for your comment, and for helping to keep WP an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 18:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken reference

In this edit to Abdullah Mohammad Khan, you added a citation using {{Cite web}}, but did not specify the "url" parameter, which causes an error. Please fix it if you know the URL or remove it if you do not. Pagrashtak 14:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Geo Swan 16:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

Listen,if it really matters to you that much, why don't you revert my changes. If you honestly feel the article is better without my edits, then go ahead. I don't want to be arguing over such trivial stuff forever. User:Color-Copycat —Preceding comment was added at 05:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

thank you

I am involved in many Afghan-related articles. Thank you for starting the Qari Ziauddin article. It is most useful. Kingturtle 23:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile

SJP:Happy Verterans Day! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Greetings!

Hi, I was formerly 134.84.96.142. Yesterday I took your advice and got a username. Anyway, I thought you should be aware of some major changes to your article Combatant Status Review Tribunal (it's currently half in italics). SomethingFamiliar 21:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dawa wa Irshad

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dawa wa Irshad, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. -- Signed by Wolvereness^{t c} 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

cleaned up Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh stop keeping track, it's unpatriotic! *teehee* anyways, just be certain not to mix up the Wahabbi and the Salafist ones - they seem to be distinct (oddly, I saw the Salafist one described as "anti-Sunni" Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Iqaluit Location Map

The wikipedia is a worldwide project. Many readers are going to have an uncertain idea of where Canada is.

Wikipedia allows words to be linked to their respective articles. If a reader does not know where Canada is (which I believe is unlikely) they can click the word Canada in the main paragraph of the article and they will be able to view a map on that page.

Orthographic projection is very useful to make clear where in the world a location is.

If someone doesn't know where Canada is, I highly doubt they are going to know how to use an orthographic map.

Further the location of Iqaluit disappears when you click on the thumbnail. Iqaluit is a port. Your placement of the red dot makes it look like the city is landlocked.

You can move the red dot. You can access the file in Commons and upload a version with a red dot over Iqaluit. You can even access the red dot used in the template and apply that dot on top of the location. Both maps are free, as is Inkscape, which was used to make the map in the first place. You're also free to add orthographic lines to the map, as I believe the map from which is was created had them. Follow the source links, and apply the original raster map in a transparent layer and trace the orthographic lines onto the map.

The major issues I had with the map you uploaded is as follows:

• The dot is far too small to be seen without clicking on the map. As a general rule, we should avoid situations where someone has to click an image to understand it.

• The contour lines on the map and especially in the Arctic Archipelago are too close together in the thumbnail, and cause confusion as to where land and water is.

If you want to have the orthographic lines—which very few Canadian city location maps have—then please find a clearer map to use as a base.

vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope your Skies are Blue and your Days Sunny

Joy

REDYVA hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove! Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Send Joy to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message. +

On your maps

If you could make a list of those of your maps that were uploaded to commons without the original upload history, I would be willing to work on getting that information copied over. —Random832 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beaufort Sea and disputed waters.png

Cripes, that was 18 months ago while I was helping to clear a massive NCT backlog. The previous versions are salvageable and I've restored them as I presume is your wish. I see you've raised this at AN/I. Its a good question and will watch to see what the views of others are. —Moondyne 14:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Map Generation

Hi there, I've come to ask your advice; I tried the mapping tool you linked to but it doesn't have the detail (for a smallish part of Wiltshire, England). I'm trying to generate a map showing the source and outflow of a small river but all map sources seem to be copyrighted. Do you know of a free tool with this level of detail which generates free-content maps? I'd draw it myself but my artistic skills are, er, limited. Thanks for any assistance you can give. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could give you more advice. I know there are better tools, that produce better maps, more detailed, with more colours, that are also free to use, and produce maps that are free to distribute. But I don't believe any of them are online -- or as easy to use. There are a dozen or so other wikipedia contributors who use them. Unless I am mistaken, they all require installing both the tool and the database of geographic data on your computer. I was just looking at the web-site of a real cartographer who works on the wikipedia's maps in his free time. I'll try to remember his name. Perhaps he can give you better advice. Ah. I remembered. User:Kmusser. If you ask your questions on your talk page or his talk page, I'll tune in, if you don't mind. Maybe I will learn something.

Meanwhile, good luck! Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, have left a similar request on Karl's talk page but he says he's not much around at present. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your query triggered me taking another look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Kmusser's page mentions it. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Zalmay Shah

Thank you for the note on my talk page. My appologies for not alerting you to the {{prod}}. It would be best if this conversation can be held at talk:Zalmay Shah. See you there.Garrie 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your comment on Talk:Zalmay Shah. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Music torture

I thought you might be interested in saving this one, too. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Taliban guesthouse, Quetta

I have nominated Taliban guesthouse, Quetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — Yavoh 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Stuart Couch

Good question, although I admit being thrown by the "Xianity" initially. The Category:Anabaptism, which includes as a somewhat distant subcat Category:Campbell University alumni, is the stated scope of the Baptist work group. Is it a "bit of a reach"? Yeah. Is it also factually true, at least regarding subcats? Yeah. Should that categorization schema be changed? Probably. Unfortunately, several editors are somewhat "lazy" about categorization. Most people, for instance, know anyone in the Category:Popes probably qualifies in Category:Roman Catholics as well, and in some cases might reasonably exclude the more general category if the more specific one is found. There is also the question as to how relevant the subject's religion, if any, is. I dunno. Personally, the essential purpose is to examine and ultimately fix the categorization schema of Category:Anabaptism, the Baptist group's stated scope, and then fix the categorization so that, as much as possible, all the subcats of Anabaptism actually relate to that faith fairly directly. Then I hope to go about fixing the cats and maybe leaving messages on talk pages regarding relevance of religious belief, possible categorization, etc. Personally, you probably know the subject better than me. Almost certainly, in fact. If you honestly think the banner is either irrelevant or contraindicated, please feel free to remove it. Personally, as I'm apparently the only person placing the banners, I don't think anyone will replace it quickly. I dunno, but I don't think so. Alternately, I hope to in a few months try to have the categorization fixed, and then review the banner placement. My apologies for having not said that when placing the banner, but I think you can see the spatial problems that might be involved. :) John Carter (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Need help

I think I mentioned the July 2005 escape from Bagram Airbase to you earlier, in which they reported "four prisoners" had escaped, but used about eight different names for them. The two Libyans (who never appeared on the same list) were merged into "one" Libyan...and then suddenly there were no Libyans that had escaped, it was Omar al-Faruq and three low-level guys. Omar al-Faruq and the Libyan don't seem to have ever been mentioned on the same list together, in fact they seem to have stopped referring to the Libyan altogether, and announced that it was (the more embarrassing loss) al-Faruq who had escaped.

Here it gets fun, al-Faruq was reported killed in Iraq the following year, but the Libyan also appeared on Dubai television recounting the story of his escape. The identities of the three low-level guys doesn't seem to change, it's just that all reports say that four guys escaped...they just disagree whether it was al-Faruq+3, or TheLibyan+3. And the Department of Defence doesn't help things, seemingly contradicting itself. My curiousity got aroused again this afternoon when I noticed the Libyan was actually officially listed by the DOD as having escaped from Bagram by the DOD...even though I had understood his name was likely an early "decoy" to try and mask the fact that al-Faruq had escaped.

I would very strongly ask you to do me a favour and spend half an hour looking around for what you can find out, I've listed the Libyan as Hasan Qayad, but try to keep the three distinct names for him separate. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll spend some time looking now. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mazar-e Sharif

I didn't rename the article. SOmeone else moved it based on the reason that the official spelling by the government of Afghanistan is Mazar-e Sharif. Also if you check athorotative sources like Britannica they spell it that way also. Kabul-Shahan2020 (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Skinsmoke said "Mazari Sharif" was the official spelling.

Maybe he or she was wrong.

Even so the unnamed IP should have followed the proper procedure, and initiated a discussion prior to their rename. And, they made other mistakes in their rename.

No offense, but i think it was a mistake on your part to compound their mistake.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

May be of interest to you

This. I recall this subject matter was related to your usual editing. Lawrence Cohen 21:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Saidullah Khalik

I have nominated Saidullah Khalik, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saidullah Khalik. 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. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Thanks for leaving him the helpful note. Sunderland06  08:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saidullah Khalik

I don't question the reliability of the sources, nor your obvious hard work in obtaining them, which is commendable. However, it is my understanding that documents of this kind, in themselves, do not fulfil the requirements of WP:N, just as a court transcript would not, unless there were secondary coverage of it through media reports or analysis in books etc. The use of such material otherwise is a form of original research and synthesis. My decision of merge was not on a head count, but a weighing of the arguments. I didn't find the keep arguments sufficient to justify the retention of the article itself, per my observations above, but they did point to the usefulness of the material if used properly. The delete argument was that the notability of this individual was not established sufficiently as distinct from any other individual in the same circumstances. This was sufficiently convincing to not keep the article. A straightforward delete would have mitigated against using the material on him elsewhere; keep arguments showed it did have a use; and even a delete had an implicit merge argument, "The situation of the Uyghurs in Guantanamo as a group appears notable". The key point is whether these Department of Defense documents, in the general context, establish notability. My evaluation was that they would still need secondary coverage and interpretation. Had the individual been singled out in media coverage at all, this would have tipped the balance, but the newspaper references given do not mention him by name, only the general case of China's Uighurs, thus supporting the argument that it is the group that is notable, not this person as an individual. You are of course free to take this to WP:DRV if you disagree, but I hope you will see the closing decision was fair. I might mention that I had come across and appreciated your work before encountering the AfD, where my initial reaction was actually towards keep, until I applied a closer analysis. Tyrenius (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Bagram Category CFD

Hi, I happened to notice your comments on Kbdank71's talk page. I could not agree more that the creators of Categories that are up for discussion at CFD should be notified so that they have the opportunity to participate. Why this is not mandatory is beyond me -- especially when it is required for AFDs. Some editors, including myself, do make a point of doing so -- and two of us recently collaborated on a new notification template for this exact purpose. I'm planning to propose a change in the guidelines some time in the not-too-distant future; for the time being, I'm laying the groundwork by raising the issue in CFDs to make people aware of the problem. Cgingold (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I weighed in on the discussion you pointed out. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jamal Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al-Badawi

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jamal Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al-Badawi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al-Badawi. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the stupid nomination, I admit I should have checked for more sources. The first person to reply to the AfD said that it appears as though Jamal Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al-Badawi and Jamal al-Bedawi are the same person- if that is so, I reccomend that you merge the content from the article you wrote into the more substantial article that already exists. If not, perhaps a note on both articles that readers may be looking for the other. Again, apologies for the nomination. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. While you were typing that, I have closed the nomination and left you the above message. It was my mistake entirely, I am happy to admit that, and I should have (but didn't) looked around the topic- a quick Google News search or regular Google search would have prevented me from wasting everyone's time. Again, I'm sorry. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The AfD's closed and there doesn't appear to have been any negative result of it, apart from a few minutes of time wasted by us two, so I don't mind about you making a public apology or anything- I made a mistake, you had every right to be annoyed with me. I can imagine that controversial subject matter is difficult to work with, and looking through the articles on your userpage, I can see you have written excellent articles on very serious subjects. Keep up the good work. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)