User talk:BWH76/Archive 1

normal courtesy
I see from your contribution history that this is a relatively new ID. I think you will find it considered a normal courtesy to give a heads-up to the article creator when you nominate an article for deletion. You didn't do so here.

I am going to suggest you consider observing this courtesy if you make further nominations. Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I got your note. I responded here.


 * You said you thought those who started an article were not supposed to remove a prod from that article? How sure are you of that?  Is it possible you are confusing WP:PROD with WP:CSD?


 * I changed the title of your talk page entry, so it doesn't explicitly name me. I write on controversial topics.  This has attracted wikistalkers.  Talk page articles are supposed to be about the content of articles, not about the personalities of the correspondents involved.  I am sure you didn't mean anything by it.  But I don't want my wikistalkers to wonder whether you are are a new potential ally.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledging error

 * IMO acknowledging error is important. I respect people who can do so. I try my best to do so myself.


 * You were correct about Jeffrey Groharing's orders. I initially misread the LA Times source.  I misread it and thought he said he had been ordered to withhold the evidence.  What it actually said was less nefarious, that he had been ordered not to talk to reporters.


 * I'd appreciate it if you would either acknowledge that you were mistaken about whether I was authorized to remove that prod, or help me out by citing the policy you think proscribed me from removing it. Geo Swan (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

policy?
You have been very busy lately.

Removing "dead links"
One of the actions you have taken in several articles is the removal of references that you think are dead links. I am concerned about this one because, as I understand it, it can be counter to policy. Disclaimer. I made this mistake myself, before I learned better.

A source is still considered a reliable source even if the wikipedia contributor who uses that source initially consulted a paper publication, not an online publication. Dead tree references are perfectly acceptable provided they cite enough information, like author, title, publisher, date of publication, for a determined reader to verify it.

Similarly, if a source a wikipedia contributor used that was once online goes dark, goes 404, you are not supposed to simply remove all evidence of that citation, unless the wikipedian used the deprecated bald inline reference. If the wikipedian included enough information for the reference to be traced it is still considered a reliable source.

You removed all trace of the "case sheet" Amnesty International prepared for Omar Khadr, when that citation had the information required to be a reliable source. That was, I believe, counter to policy. I'd like to ask you to stop making those kinds of edits.

In fact the Omar Khadr reference had not been removed. Amnesty International had done what many organizations do as their web presence grows. They had reorganized how their site was laid out. Omar Khadr's case sheet was still on their site, just under a different name.

If you are concerned when you find a reference that no longer seems to point where it should let me suggest you consider taking one of these actions:
 * 1) Use the information provided by the wikipedian who placed the reference, to do a web-search.
 * 2) *Maybe, as with Omar Khadr, the information is still on that site, just at a new URL;
 * 3) *Maybe, although the original url is no longer online, there are authorized mirrors. The New York Times had a policy for about two years, until about 6 months ago, where most articles only stayed freely available online for 10 days or two weeks, then becoming available only to subscribers.  But identical copies of about half of those articles were republished by the International Herald Tribune.  A substantial fraction of the references to newspaper articles used here were merely a newspaper publishing a wire service story, and the identical story may remain widely available on other newspaper's sites.
 * 4) Your web search may not find the new site, or authorized mirror, of the original article, but may find you a similar enough article, from the same date, that can substantiate the same facts, that you can substitute.
 * 5) If you are very confident the original article really is no longerr online, hasn't just been moved, there are no authorized mirrors, but the reference contains the publication, article title, and publication date, you can change that reference to show it is to a paper publication. Do you know how to use   templates?  cite accepts a modifier.  cite news and cite web are the most common.  But cite paper is also available.  Simply change the modifier to paper.
 * 6) Another perfectly acceptable choice is to do nothing.

Do put a brief note on the talk page, describing what you did and why you did it.

Don't be fooled by sites that look like real newspapers, but are really blog sites, that don't have permission to republish the article. While a few blog-like sites may get permission to republish material from newspapers (I think some newspapers waive their republication fee for charities) most do not. Technically it is not a violation of copyright to reference a non-authorized mirror. Technically the liability for the copyright violation is on the blogger, not person who links to the copyright violation. But, it is not wikipedia practice to use links to material published in violation of copyright. Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * dropping by--I did this also when I came here, and thought it was a very good idea. A few people took part in persuading me otherwise.  DGG (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

removing redlinks
I have also seen you "removing redlinks". This is, IMO, also a big mistake. The information contained in the wikipedia is not solely contained in the raw text wikipedian's contributed. Much of the information lies in the links that establish how the information in the text is related.

The naive view may be that redlinks are useless, or confusing.

They are not useless. When a reader clicks on a redlink their browser opens up a window explaining that this particular wikipedia page hasn't been written yet. The reader has several choices:
 * 1) This explanation page provides them with a search button, to let them search for references to the topic they clicked on in other articles. Often this list of other articles will provide the reader with a link to articles that contain the information they wanted.  In this case the redlink was useful.
 * 2) That page has the very powerful, and under-used "what links here" button. Clicking on this button shows the reader a list of all the articles that have a redlink to a non-existent article with this name.  Often this list of other articles will provide a link to an article that has the information they wanted.  Or, alternatively, it will help them decide that the redlink took them to an artilce that, if it had existed, would not after all have contained the information they were looking for.  In this case the redlink was useful.
 * 3) The reader may be someone with the time, energy, or expertise to draft the missing article. Leaving the redlink is helpful.  It conveys to the person who decides to draft the article the earlier wikipedians suggestion for what the article should be named.  Sometimes the person who left the redlink had a good reason for suggesting a name that was not the obvious name.  Disambiguation, for instance, often results in redlinks being created with non-obvious names.

You removed a relink to  William Kuebler . You apparently didn't spend a few seconds clicking on that redlink, then clicking on the "search for William Keubler in other articles". If you had done so you would have seen that the wikipedia already had an article about William Keubler, only under his full name, William C. Kuebler. The fifteen second fix in this case was not removal of the wikilink, but simply to paste in  #redirect William C. Keubler  into the edit box for Wiilliam Keubler article.

There are lots of things more aggravating than spending a half hour, or an hour, crafting a new article for a topic that, surprisingly, doesn't have one -- going and finding references -- only to learn that there really was an article about that topic, but under an article title that didn't occur to you. But it is still aggravating. And one of the causes is the over-enthusiastic removal of redlinks.

I am not trying to suggest that there aren't pointless redlinks, created by vandals, that could and should be removed. But they are vastly outnumbered by perfectly valid redlinks that should be left alone. Please regard those redlinks as the frontier where the wikipedia is continuing to grow. Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Response: The "correct" response to this has been made been made to you  here.

Responding to your edits and challenges
I am frustrated with the calls upon my time arising from your recent edits. Maybe you can help me with this.

Is there any possibility that you could:
 * 1) Slow down your challenges to my contributions so that responding to your challenges doesn't consume the entire time I budget for working on the wikipedia? Since most of that material has been there for months, or years, surely it is not urgent?
 * 2) Is there any way you could see your way clear to simply initiating a dialog with me over your general concerns, rather than challenge each specific instance?

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Purwokerto
Thanks - it still needs lots of work, especially from somebody who knows a lot about Indonesia. I can't help there! --Reuben (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Somalia
Just wanted to say good working with you on the Somalia stuff. I teach Middle Eastern politics at a couple of universities here in Australia but have research interests in UN peacekeeping too. I've just had a journal article published on the comparison between the Australian involvements in Somalia and Rwanda. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Khadr
There were some small technical errors that I corrected in the lead. First, it is incorrect to say he is a "terrorist" and accused of murder, the murder charge is why he is accused of war crimes/terrorism. Also, the term "procedural flaw" is a bit of a weasel word, implying that his classification (or the later attempt) is somehow a "flaw" - I instead explained the issue without taking up any more textspace. I also gave a bit more context to the case being "reopened", explaining why the findings were reversed.

I hope this helps, I'd hate to see the OK article become a battlefield itself.

btw, I agree about forking the USA vs OK article, I do watch Geo's talk page and see everything that goes on ;)

Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, you can make up for your hasty mistake by helping us out on Wikisource where we're collecting Federal documents (thus public domain) on the issue such as Wikisource:Review of Combatant Status Review Tribunal for Detainee ISN 766, as part of the larger Wikisource:Guantanamo project! Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's basically a matter of finding the trial/ARB/CSRT transcripts, uploading the PDF and images to Commons and copying the text to Wikisource. If you find a document you'd like to try, let me know and I'd be happy to watch your progress and help you meet style guidelines. Wikisource is, as you may know, an official sister-project of Wikipedia - where we collect public domain texts in their entirety as-written, for historical accuracy. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Planet X
I do it all the time. :-) Still, there were some interesting quotes in your source which might be worth including. I'll look into it.  Serendi pod ous  08:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Well, I see you've been around for quite a while, but you've never been officially welcomed, so... welcome. :) I took a look at Coastal Extreme Brewing Company and made a few minor cleanup type edits. As for actual substance, I'm not real sure how much I can contribute. Good luck, and happy editing! – ClockworkSoul 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

40 Man roster
Hey, I see you revert the years that Carl Pavano has been on the Yankees based on his inclusion on the 40 man roster. Is there a wiki policy/guidance for this? I've seen this go both ways, some pages have only the years where the player made at least one appearance on the club (whether he was disabled / in the minors but still on the 40 man roster), others like what you did including the years he was on the 40 man roster. I have no major heartburn either way, but would like to be consistent across the board. Hardnfast (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked the question at the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball and the response I received was "The current standard is to only list when he made an appearance for the team during the season, not the minors or DL". Hardnfast (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor
are u an editor --Gia Primo (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

european fight club
where do I put links for showing importance ? on the article itself ? --Gia Primo (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kuwata
Usually infoboxes dont have career numbers as highlights unless it is a record, it would be like putting that a guy has 2000 career hits in the infobox, its not a record so it shouldnt really be there--Yankees10 17:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

your welcome--Yankees10 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

VoM
Not a problem, I can definitely see the NPOV problems with a lot of the War on Terror articles (and yes, I'm including "too sympathetic" as a definite POV problem), and I agree that the Guantanamo detainee articles need rewriting (not just for NPOV, but like I did with Ajam, bring the relevant details to the intro, etcetera. Otherwise they're just cookie-cutter templates) - though I do think they should exist. I've got a Peer Review up for Khadr at the moment, I'd appreciate if you'd take the time to give some constructive criticism. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, for sure.
I just thought it was a little weird since I'm a senior at La Quinta myself, and I figure I would've heard as much about Delmon as I have Kennedy and Crosby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggman183 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes
Yes, please take a more active role in the project, I have had very few chances to log in for the pat few weeks -- Pupster21  Talk To Me  11:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read
I am sure your recent efforts moving entries from Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees were well intentioned. However, please read this note I left on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Responded on the article's talk page. BWH76 (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Brian Sherwin
I noticed your vote for this bio. It seems to me that some of the statements about this bio being deleted are based more on assumptions than fact. For example, JeremyMcCracken voted for deletion of the Brian Sherwin bio stating "the website he's notable for (myartspace) wouldn't even meet notability; even if it did, there have been a great many AfDs for a NN creator of a notable website.". I think an artist networking site that has been involved with curators from the Tate Modern, The National Portrait Gallery, SAIC, and Sotheby's, and that has had exhibits in the South of France and the Chelsea art district in Manhattan is notable.

The question about myartspace is not the issue here in the first place and I will add that the idea that Sherwin is the creator of the site is an assumption because he is not nor was it ever stated on the bio that he was. He is their Senior Editor and a founding member as noted by their Management Team page. That is clear in the bio. So how can someone mark a bio for deletion when they obviously did not read the bio and the changes that have been made? I appreciate your vote, but I don't think it was made in good faith because you simply agreed with Jeremy's reasoning without additional reasons for your vote. Much has changed with the bio since Jeremy's vote. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Peer approval!
In my opinion, that was well said and well done of you. :D (Oh! More! This, too.) I'm not sure how this gentleman came to my page, but he seems very sincere and well-intentioned, if somewhat frustrated. So, kudos to you for your patience and kindness to a newbie. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have something to say to you.
I have something to say to you.

And I would appreciate it if you paused, and waited, for my message. Geo Swan (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I believe that your efforts are made in a sincere attempt to improve the wikipedia. You wrote something about six weeks ago that made clear you mis-interpreted something I wrote as applying to you.  I spent some time working on a reply to that note.  I'll dig up my notes, polish it, and leave it here, later today.


 * Five months ago you sent me a note. It was a mistake, on my part, to not send you a reply.  I'll be frank.  The main reason I didn't was that I found your personal comments on my character and judgment very offensive.  I would have replied if your note had contained an acknowledgment that you realized you had been offensive.


 * I gather that you think I have been offensive to you. That has not been my intention.


 * Let me be clear about the most recent things that disturbed me. I try to keep my comments on talk pages on the content level, not personalities.  And, in recent afds I have posed what I consider serious, civil questions to you, and a couple of other participants.  It seems to me that my questions are just being blown off, not answered.


 * In my opinion, afds arguments should be based on policy.


 * If we are going to participate in the same afds I am going to continue to do my best to keep all my comments there civil, serious, meaningful, and content based. If you think I lapsed from civility standards, you can call me on it.  Probably best, to observe the wikipedia's content not personality policy, to give me that heads-up on my talk page or via e-mail.


 * What I ask of you, if we end up participating in any future discussions, that you also do your beest to confine yourself to content, not personalities, and that you do your best to give serious, meaningful, content based replies to civil, serious questions. If you agree you want to know, I will let you know, via a civil e-mail, or by a civil note on your talk page, if I think you lapsed from the wikipedia's civility-related policies.


 * I'd also like you to consider withdrawing one of your recent nominations for deletion. Responding to them takes a lot of energy.  Candidly, I also think it is in your interest, because I think many people feel there is an informal "one at a time" rule.  This is not a policy.  Some people will disagree.  But I honestly feel some participants will regard multiple nominations as a form of harrassment.  Geo Swan (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

apologies
In Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam you wrote:

Normally, My personal standards oblige me to correct inadvertent misconceptions my comments trigger. I did start a couple of notes to you, to clarify that I do not consider you to be either a wikistalker or a sockpuppet. One of my attempts to correct the inadvertent misconceptions my comments triggered starts:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * For the record, I do not believe you are a sockpuppet or wikistalker.
 * For the record, I believe that all of your efforts on the wikipedia are well-intentioned.
 * For the record, I believe that you actually, sincerely believe your actions are in the best interests of the project.
 * For the record, I believe that you actually, sincerely believe your actions are in the best interests of the project.


 * }

My notes record that I would, if you requested, offer you a formal public apology for triggering that misconception.

Why didn't I offer you this clarification earlier? It is a lapse from my expectations of my behavior. Why. Because I could not, in all conscience, apologize for finding you didn't offer serious, meaningful replies.

I am afraid your responses to me since then continue to fall short of serious, policy based responses. WP:COATRACK, for instance. I have asked, several times, for those who are concerned over lapses from the advice in the WP:COATRACK essay to be specific about which sections of the essay they think ignore the essay's advice. No one has offered a single specific example.

In both my drafts I wrote:

I am still willing to publicly state that I don't consider you to be a sockpuppet or wikistalker.

I apologize for not completing a reply to your January note. I see I started several drafts of a reply to it.

I apologize for writing something that inadvertently triggering a feeling in you that I thought you were a wikistalker of sockpuppet, and assure you that is not what I meant and not what I thought I wrote.

I apologize for failing to clarify your impression that day.

If you don't find these apologies satisfactory, you can tell me why. Geo Swan (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Semboku District, Akita
Ah, sorry about that. I looked at Semboku, Akita and figured that the romanization was supposed to be the same for both. I went with the m for ん out of habit, but after I read your message, I looked around and found that the romanization of ん as m after labial consonants is really only formally used in traditional Hepburn romanization. I'll keep an eye out for those things in the future. -Nameneko (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Prague Spring
I'm sure it's in the documents put together in navratil's book. I'm on vacation right now and don't have time to look for a page ref. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)