User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2010-May

Learn more about this page

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

Uighur house listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Uighur house. Since you had some involvement with the Uighur house redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

RfD nomination of Wazim (terror suspect)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

RfD nomination of Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

RfD nomination of Uighur guest house, Pakistan

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

NOINDEX

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I am striking the following comment from the wiki-id User:Iqinn. User:Iqinn has made similar suggestions several times before. I have declined the offer every time. And I do so again here. As I told User:Iqinn the first time they brought this up I was not aware of the {{noindex}} directives when I first started to use user-space for my notes, years ago. I think the {{noindex}} directive is not widely known. When I became a aware of it I started adding it to my user-space notes, both, as I edit and use those notes, and also in a systematic fashion. My contribution history shows I have consistently been adding the directive to my notes.

User:Iqinn has a long list of mistakes they have made in article space. These mistakes disturb me a lot more than missing {{noindex}} directives. Although User:Iqinn seems to have tacitly acknowledged some of these mistakes, they have been unwilling to fix them, stating, instead, that anyone else is free to clean up after them.` I have responded to all their earlier suggestions that I permit them to monkey with my notes in user space by requesting them to clean up after the mistakes they have acknowledged leaving in article space.

Let me be more blunt. I have already shared with User:Iqinn my concerns over highly misleading edit summaries they have used in their edits in article-space, talk-space, and in user-talk-space. I do not believe giving my permission for them to edit my user-space notes would result in less work for me. I believe it would result in a lot more work, as I would have to carefully check every edit, to confirm it only contained what it said it contained. Frankly, I would also be concerned that they would end up trying to make my user-space notes comply with their personal POV. I aim for my user-space notes to comply with WP:NPOV. But, if my user-space notes do lapse from neutrality, and contain a biased POV, I want it to be my POV, not someone else's. Geo Swan (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Something wrong with my last post? Refusing to answer other editors questions is not good and to strike other editors comments without reason could be seen as uncivil. IQinn (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your post here is ad hominum and i am not going into all the false uncivil accusations against me as you have a history of editing, striking or removing of other editors comments on your user page. And what's the point?

~~I just want to ask you concerning the issue of adding of the NOINDEX tag to the Guantanamo related articles if you could please add these tags to your articles?~~

Remember you ask me not to add the tag myself and instead to leave you a list of pages on your talk page of pages that i come across in the search engines and that need the tag. So i am a bit surprised about your action to strike my comment and your unwillingness to fix this problem combined with and unfriendly ad hominum comment. That has been a topic for many month now.

I am sorry i have constantly tried to solve the topic in a friendly manner with you. If you are still not adding the tag to these pages than i have no choices than to bring this issue to the community. IQinn (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

~~Could you please add the tag or let other editors add the tag to these kind of pages? Things have not been fixed yet. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)~~Reply

User:Iqinn recently cited, or rather mis-cited WP:User Pages. I continue to believe Iqinn is way off base to continue to harass me, particularly when Iqinn has a vast number of mistakes in article space, which they have decided to leave to other contributors to clean up. Geo Swan (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

As said before my edits in article space are not "mistakes". I also wonder where i "mis-cited" WP:User Pages as i have not cited this policy recently? You may provide us with a diff. IQinn (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

RfD nomination of East Turkistan Organization safe house (Jalalabad)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

RfD nomination of Arab guesthouse (Pakistan)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

RfD nomination of Guest house, Afghanistan

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Concord Hotel, Kuala Lumpur listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Concord Hotel, Kuala Lumpur. Since you had some involvement with the Concord Hotel, Kuala Lumpur redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). B.Wind (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC) B.Wind (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

You ask...

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Concerning Tariq Khan.

Are you sure that unlinking was the appropriate action here? Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Of course. Good i took action and things have been fixed. Talk:Pakistani_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay. IQinn (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK. I disagree. The revision history showed that the original Tariq Khan article had been replaced with an article about a completely different person. I think it was a mistake on your part to unlink the article without looking at the revision history. Geo Swan (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I respect your personal point of view but that was not a mistake at all. You might blame the person who overwrote the article if you think it would be worth to waste time in blaming people. The problem has only be fixed because i unlinked the article. My point of view for my edit: Good job! IQinn (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The individual who over-wrote the article was a single purpose account. They first left uncivil and inappropriate comments in article space, prior to blanking and over-writing the article. If they had continued to edit in that manner they would soon have been permanently blocked for vandalism. So, yes, they were at fault. But if the wikipedia is going to survive vandalism it is necessary to look out for signs of vandalism -- like checking article's revision histories.

If you checked the revision history of Tariq Khan, and had not found any vandalism, then wouldn't it have been more appropriate to have created Tariq Khan (disambiguation)? The current rules for disambiguation pages are that redlinks are allowed, provided the article name is also linked from a real article in article space.

You wrote: "...if you think it would be worth to waste time in blaming people..." Let's be clear here. Are you telling me that you think I was wasting your time? If so, please remember this is a collaborative project, and we should all be prepared to accept civil and well-intentioned feedback. Geo Swan (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are right this is a collaborative project and the issue has been fixed thanks to the action i took. That was quite a success story for the project. IQinn (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

If your response means you are ready to accept civil, project-based feedback without treating every instance as a personal attack, then I welcome this response. Geo Swan (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Following up on this edit to my talk page [1] i must say you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. Anybody can edit, further improve and build on the work of other editors.

Concerning the problem with adding the NOINDEX tag to the vast amount of Guantanamo related articles and rough notes (that are problematic and can not be edit by other users) and should not represent Wikipedia on this sensitive topic. I once again politely ask you to add the NOINDEX tag to this pages as we have discussed and agreed on month ago. As i said if you are too busy i or other editors can help you. IQinn (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

You write: "i must say you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. Anybody can edit, further improve and build on the work of other editors." Here we have another instance when serious mistakes on your part were drawn to your attention -- and your response is that you will leave them for other people to clean up. Geo Swan (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is incorrect. These edits here are not "mistakes" at all. That's just your personal opinion. IQinn (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please understand that by deciding to contribute to the wikipedia you have agreed to be bound by the wikipedia's policies, and when its collegial decision making arrives at a clear consensus. You asked for input at WP:Help desk here. Please don't claim it is my personal opinion your use of unattributed direct quotes was a problem. Every single contributor who weighed in told you that it was a mistake to use direct quotes without proper attribution. So please show respect for the truth. It is s awild distortion to asser that this was just my "personal opinion". I strongly suspect some of those other contributors would be just as concerned as I was if they had been aware that you had used unattributed direct quotes in over one hundred articles. Geo Swan (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Articles for deletion nomination of The Brotherhood Letter

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. IQinn (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Articles for deletion nomination of Jamat Mujahedeen Maroc

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. IQinn (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Articles for deletion nomination of The Wire (JTF-GTMO)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. IQinn (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Articles for deletion nomination of Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. IQinn (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Reply

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

discussion here. Geo Swan (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Gulan‎

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Gulan‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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.--Raoulduke47 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Iqinn

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for letting me know about your posts, Geo Swan. I responded on his talk page (∆ here). If his edit conduct again gets out of hand, please advise. I’ve got an essay, here on distinguishing between exposing the shortcomings of an editor’s ideas v.s. the editor himself. Feel free to e-mail me if you like. Greg L (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit summaries

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am going to repeat my request that you make a greater effort to use clear and meaningful edit summaries. In particular, you have frequently used the edit summary "clarify" when you made controversial edits. This means that anyone familiar with your editing history can haave zero confidence that any edit where you supplied the edit summary "clarify" it is really a fair summary of an innocuous and non-controversial edit. Geo Swan (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

My edit summaries follow common practice on Wikipedia. What controversial edit are you talking about? IQinn (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

You routinely used the edit summary "clarify" when you made extensive and/or controverial edits. Geo Swan (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Anwar al-Awlaki

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What are your thoughts about this edit I made? Greg L (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

WRT centralized discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I do not think that this is necessary and it reminded me a bit on WP:Ownership and past experiences have show that similar discussions ended in non productive filibustering waste of time. Articles talk pages are perfectly fine to discuss article specific issues like the one on Lotfi Bin Ali. I have addressed your concerns there Talk:Lotfi_Bin_Ali#Identity / Inconsistent identification. Cheers IQinn (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe you are the one who shows ownership behavior, since you have proven unwilling or unable to engage in civil, collegial discussion over your edits. My record, on the other hand shows I am willing to discuss other contributors concern. Please stop accusing me of ownership. Please drop the idea that you are infallible.

Your accusations of "filibustering" is one manifestation of your willingness to show enough respect for other contributors to consider the possibility that other correspondents may have made valid points.

Our goal is supposed to be to improve the wikipedia. We are not supposed to engage in power struggles where we try to prove we are "right", at all costs, while showing zero willingness to actually listen to the views of our correspondents. Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's wrong i do not show this ownership behavior. I have been and will be always engage in civil, collegial discussions.

That's wrong. I do not engage in "power struggles" and do not try to "prove i am right". I do listen to the views of my correspondent. I do concentrate on improving content. IQinn (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I really wish I could agree with you, but, it is not what your record shows. Your record shows how frequently you lash out, and level baseless accusations against good faith contributors who disagree with you, or pose civil and collegial questions about your actions, as you did in this comment. Geo Swan (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Abdul Haq

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have come across multiple "Abdul Haq" which I believe could be the same person. For example on:

I am asking if the Abdul Haq (2005 & 2008) are the same person then can those two pages become one and rename the page to "Abdul Haq (Taliban leader)"? Is it possible Abdul Haq (al Qaida leader), be the same person or someone else who has a similar name? If it is a different person then there is no need for the second and third Abdul Haq to have multiple pages. Understand? Possibly merge the 2005 & 2008 if it is the same person? This is only a suggestion and to avoid "multiple" pages of the same person. Adamdaley (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

These individuals could be the same. But I am unaware of any authoritative experts who say they are the same. "Abdul Haq" is a common name in the region. Barring WP:RS that say they are the same it seems to me it would be a lapse from WP:NOR for one of us to assert they are the same individual.

WRT to Abdul_Haq_(Taliban_leader,_2005) and Abdul_Haq_(Taliban_leader,_2008)... I would wonder how the individual captured in 2005 was killed in action in 2008.

WRT to Abdul Haq (al Qaida leader) -- is it possible that some American intelligence officials mistakenly conflated Al Qaida and the Taliban? It is quite possible, but I have seen no WP:RS that assert this. It is also possible they meant Abdul Haq (ETIP) -- A Uyghur, or Abdul Haq (Afghan leader). Quite a few allies of the US, members of the Northern Alliance, ended up in Guantanamo apparently because US officials couldn't keep track of all the organizations that composed the Northern Alliance, and were willing to lock up any Afghan who was a member of an organization that had "Islamic" in its name.

Have you come across any references to support merging the articles?

I have seen some articles that tried to cover multiple individuals with the same name. But I believe it is counter-policy to do so.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

GeoSwan,

I have no sources to support merging the articles. I felt to ask someone who knew more about these articles than I did and possibly come to some conclusion. I'll look information online about these two people. I already have and it appears one of them could be of "Asian" appearance. I could be wrong in linking the name to the picture. Maybe we can together come up with something to expand the following somehow:

Would appreciate feedback from you. Adamdaley (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Geo Swan,

My apologies, the "Abdul Haq" I identified as being "Asian" in my last reply, is that of an already-made article (possibly) of Abdul_Haq_(ETIP). Adamdaley (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have been considering suggesting moving Abdul Haq (ETIP) to Abdul Haq al Turkistani. There has been quite a bit of coverage of an individual known by that name. "Al Turkistani" merely means "from Turkistan".

The 2005 individual could have been released, so he would have been at large to be killed in 2008. But that involve speculation on our part, if we can't find RS.

I just found reference to a Taliban leader Abdul Haq, one of 7 leaders captured, then released, in January 2002, and another in 1997, who announced school closings. Unfortunately, while google turns up the key sentences, the articles are among those where only the first couple of paragraphs are online, through a repackager. The articles available for a fee, or through getting a paper or microfiche copy through interlibrary loan. I don't think I will spring for the $5 access fee, when the article might only contain a single sentence about Haq.

I'll spend a bit more time looking. Geo Swan (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic