User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2008-July-to-September

What the hell?
What the hell are these prosecutors smoking? Either the two camps are the same, in which case 500+ previous references have been FUBAR, or "only a few" detainees face FUBAR charges - either way, I'd say we leave the two articles separate unless we find another source confirming they are the same, which isn't based on the same information that source is. But Tarnak Farms was fairly well-described among the training camps, I'd be surprised if something like "It's the same place as AO Camp" was so hard-to-find, if it were true. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is not really consistent with the assumption that the interrogations and analysis thereof were being conducted with any real competence. On this Jarabh's testimony is consistent -- he traveled from Iran to first Herat, in Afhganistan's West, and then to Kandahar.  He disputed attending a training camp, but acknowledged joining with some friends in some target practice -- for fun.


 * Jarabh is one of the Yemeni captives. Over a third of the remaining captives are Yemenis.  Hardly any of them have been repatriated.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah
Four more days until Whitling makes the video of CSIS interrogating Khadr in Gitmo public, then it's a quick conversion to .ogg format, on Commons, and embedded in OK's article - since past references to the videotaping make it clear it was the US who insisted on filming the interrogation, thus making it clearly Public Domain footage. If you see it online before I do, give me a nudge. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Abdalhadi M. Al-Sopai
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Abdalhadi M. Al-Sopai, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Oo7565 (talk)

2006 article
Hi there, thanks for adding as an external link a 2006 news article as you did here. Oddly enough, that article was out of date at the time, since he was convicted after they retried him in 2005 following a mistrial in 2002. Tyciol (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i
I have nominated Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?  BradV  01:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per this article, I see the statement "Abdul Qudos [sic] was an al Qaida leader who had over 500 al Qaida fighters under his command in the Tora Bora region as of 15 December 2001.", the sic means I assume you know who they are referencing? who? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Query to User talk:Kingboyk
A quick look at Special:Contributions/Kingboyk should answer your question; this account is pretty quiet these days. Perhaps when K returns to more regular contributing (if he does) then I am sure you will get a reply. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, if he is not in a position to participate regularly enough to be accountable, perhaps he should consider resigning, or at least not exercising, his administrator powers. I have been looking for an answer for about six months.  I think I have been pretty patient.  Kingboyk has been active during that six months.   And he has been exercising administrator powers during that time.


 * I believe Kingboyk's actions illustrate a real weakness in the wikipedia's deletion mechanism. When I brought up these eight deletions on DRV many correspondents looked at the deletion log, and assumed from the WP:CSD codes he had used to annotate those entries, that Kingboyk had merely completed the second stage of a deletion that had been initiated by another party who had left a speedy deletion tag.


 * The wikipedia's deletion log currently clearly differentiates deletions backed up by an afd, from other deletions. But it doesn't distinguish between deletions where an andminstrator concludes a speedy deletion initiated by someone else, where the article was observed by at least two sets of eyes, and where, most likely, the article creator was advised that the article was nominated for deletion -- and unilateral deletions, where the article creator wasn't given any warning, or even advised that the article had been deleted.


 * Kingboyk did not advise me that he deleted these eight articles. I did not realize that they had been deleted for months, until I saw some red-links in a list that should have had no red-links.


 * I have read the deletion guide for administrators, which, from my reading, urges administrators to reserve unilateral deletion for emergencies. Kingboyk's deletion were not emergencies.  And the speedy codes he claimed justified the deletions seemed highly questionable.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't do (due to lack of knowledge) much in the way of deleting, and DRV even less. However, you might have a case for requesting deletion review owing to the lack of communication/reason. In any event, the review will allow other admins to provide reasons if the DRV is unsuccesful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 679279c7d23aa0a1519a97fff29ace62
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Proposed deletion of Prescott Prince
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Prescott Prince, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. RayAYang (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Could you please explain more fully...
Could you please explain more fully why you characterized Image:Colombian security official appearing to wear Red Cross ID as a ruse.jpg as "replaceable"?

Could you please confirm that you looked closely enough at this case to understand that the grainy image on the right was from the video taken by the Colombian security officials, during the rescue -- and it thus clearly NOT replaceable?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say it's not replaceable, but that image is just so bad quality that I don't think it would help a reader understand any better than just text. Melesse (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, we keep our eyes peeled for a better one.


 * Since you agree that it is not replaceable, can I look forward to you removing the tag where you asserted it was replaceable? Geo Swan (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mis-spoke. A better image of the event would be non-replaceable. The current one is really just so bad that I had to read the text, and then look at it for a long time to understand what was going on. In that case, text only is sufficient. Is that really the best shot in the whole video? Melesse (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You write:
 * No offense, but this does not strike me as a supportable argument. It seems to me that an image of an event is either replaceable, or non-replaceable.  It seems to me that its replaceability has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the instance of the image we have.


 * Is this really the best shot in the whole video? I don't know.  I don't currently have access to the whole video.  CNN picked this still.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The first part of the non-free content policy specifically says that if an image can be adequately conveyed in text, then an image is probably not necessary. In this case, I found the text a lot more informative than a grainy off center shot. Melesse (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman merger
Geo Swan, the tag on the Iseman page is correct. The confusion stems from the awkward title of the lobbyist controversy page:"John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008". Someone should probably rename that page but I think I'll just pick one battle at a time DiggyG (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Arabic name sorting
In this edit you wrote that "It is a mistake to shoehorn Arabic names into the English style of surnames." However, the Wikipedia article does refer to him on second mention as "Nechle", implying that for our purposes that is his surname. Besides, the article is going to end up somewhere in the categories no matter what is taken to be his surname (under M rather than N), so wouldn't it make sense to place it somewhere that would be expected in an English-language encyclopedia? ... disco spinster   talk  02:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just about to come here to leave the same message regarding Ibrahim Bin Shakaran. DEFAULTSORT is useful because it allows editors to find an article in a category by knowing the surname; no one is going to look for mr. Shakaran under Ibrahim, but rather Shakaran, regardless of the truthiness of it.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Kenyan captives in the war on terror"
The deletion of an article you created, Kenyan captives in the war on terror, has been proposed for the following reason:


 * NOT

You are welcome to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and remove the deletion notice from the article. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion, though in such cases, further discussion may take place at Articles for deletion, and the article may still be deleted if there is a consensus to do so.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy. You may wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. PeterCantropus (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Coverage of the subjects of extraordinary rendition merits coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you should merge that information into Extraordinary rendition by the United States article. I believe there are a lot of captives in the war of terror, Kenyan and others, and I don't see why you should divide them into nationalities. I cited the NOT policy, because your article appears to be based only on one article that appeared in the media. "Routine" doesn't mean it's not important. --PeterCantropus (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is useful to organize them by nationality, because the USA treats them differently -- depending on their nationality. Originally the Saudis were the second most represented group in Guantanamo, after the Afghans.  Almost all the Afghans and Saudis have been repatriated.  The Yemenis were the third most represented group in Guantanamo.  But hardly any of them have been repatriated, and now they are the most represented group -- over one third of the remaining captives are Yemenis.


 * I think merging this list with any other article would be a mistake. But, if for the sake of argument, a merge made sense, why merge with Extraordinary rendition by the United States?  Why not merge to black sites?  Why not merge high value detainees?  Note, it could be argued that these extraordinary renditions were Extraordinary renditions by Kenya.


 * Implying that they were in US custody now is a poor choice.


 * On September 6 2006 President Bush acknowledged that the CIA maintains an overseas network of secret interrogation centers -- black sites. He said that when he authorized the transfer of 14 high value detainees from secret CIA custody to military custody in Guantanamo he had emptied the CIA's black sites.  Some observers thought he had said he had ordered the sites closed.  He hadn't.  Some observers


 * A title that implies that the Kenyans were in US custody now is a poor choice -- because US spokesmen play a shell game. Did you know that Janis Karpinski tried to squirm out of her responsibility for the abuses at Abu Ghraib by claiming it was an Iraqi facility -- not a US facility?  The same with the salt pit -- it was claimed to be an Afghan facility, not a US facility.  The current title does not imply they are currently in US custody, preventing arguments as to whether facilities paid for by the USA, with staff trained by the USA, and overseen by the USA, are US facilities, when the guards are local nationals, and, on paper, the facility is owned and run by local nationals.


 * Finally, forgive me if I ask you to explain what you mean by "routine". Geo Swan (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, you seem to be a specialist. I'm not (although I read newspapers, of course). And because I'm no specialist, I think I'm noticing that everything seems a little tangled up. I didn't know there were articles such as high value detainees. And if you ask me, I think every data in these articles should be in War on Terror. You have to think in this: who would look up in an encyclopedia "Kenyan captives in the war on terror"? But "War on Terror", although quite specific, is a term I would look up to. I think, and please don't take this wrong, that you are complicating things. But you are always free to remove the prod and we can nominate it for deletion so there's a more thorough debate.


 * "Routine news coverage" means everyday news. All news are important. But they're news. Not encyclopedic articles. --PeterCantropus (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't have articles solely so someone can go to the search box, and type in the name of an article they think should exist. We have articles so we can link information together.  Readers who make the best use of the wikipedia are going to end up traversing articles they got to by clicking on links.


 * If I am reading your concern above correctly you are suggesting that if an average reader is like you they are unlikely to think to pick "Kenyan captives in the war on terror". I suggest that this, if true, is not very important.  People interested in the article will find it, through following links.


 * Getting to the information you need through following a link in a constellation of small related articles that are sharply focused will be faster than scanning through one huge unfocused omnibus article that tries to cover a bunch of related topics. And, for technical reasons, there is a relatively small maximum size on articles, before they are too large for our browsers to load them, and allow us to navigate them.


 * Name dropping time. When I was an undergrad I worked, as what we would call an intern today, on Ted Nelson's Project Xanadu.


 * One of Ted's points, was that we have a very democratic technology at our disposal. We can let our readers be in charge of their own use of the wikipedia.  When all knowledge was recorded on linear medium, had to be recorded on linear medium, like paper, stone, film, readers were compelled to follow the author's stream in one long linear flow.  Even if authors knew that the topic they wished to write about was best served by a multidimensional branching document, they had no choice.  They had to pick which portion of the topic comes first, second, etc.


 * We aren't restricted to that choice. With small, focused, stand-alone articles, that are richly linked to the small, focused, stand-alone articles that are related, readers have the power to skip all the bits they aren't currently interested in, and go directly to the things that interest them.


 * The exciting thing is when your search brings you to some unexpected, remarkable, exciting, aspect of the topic you were researching. This is more likely to happen when we structure the wikipedia in small, focused articles, which our readers can traverse to by following links.


 * I repeat, it is easier to traverse the tree of knowledge by clicking on links, than by reading or scanning through large articles.


 * Why can't the traversing I described be performed by following internal links within a single article? For technical reasons.  The way the wikimedia software is currently set up the links within a subject, links like  Important article  is much less powerful, useful than a link to another article.


 * Those internal links are incredibly fragile. Linking to subtopics no longer works if someone amends the name of the subtopic -- or removes the subtopic heading alltogether.  One can rename articles time after time, but redirection makes sure we always end up at the article we want.  And there are clues to authors, through the "what links here" button, as to what kind of damage they will do if they nominate an article for deletion, or change it to a redirection.  But there are no clues that one will be breaking links when one removes or amends a subtopic heading.


 * Maybe some later version of the wikipedia will be sophisticated enough that one can link to subtopics as robustly as we currently link to articles. Indeed, in Ted's original vision, writers could make a single word or phrase the target of a link.  But so long as articles are, essentially, old fashioned files.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

unusual prod
Someone put a prod tag on User:Geo Swan/Review/Ralph Kohlmann in your user space, apparently without notifying you. I removed it, of course. I suggest you put all your subpages expl;icitly on your watchlist. It does not seem to be automatic. DGG (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have checked further, and it was not targeted at this topic. The ed. involved did the same to many pages. Various admins have been reverting all of them. DGG (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up.


 * User:Eusebeus had nominated the stub I created about Kohlmann back in 2006.


 * I just checked my talk page. Eusebeus didn't leave me a courtesy heads-up.  Someone in the afd said they thought Eusebeus was showing bad-faith.  That might be going a bit too far, because there are people who don't give courtesy heads-ups, even today, and I think it was more common back in 2006.


 * I wouldn't have known this back in 2006, but, like national politicians, I believe judges are specifically exempt from challenges based on notability.


 * I asked the deleting administrator to restore it for review when I created Raplp H. Kohlmann, about two months ago. They were correct, there wasn't very much to merge into the newer article.


 * Yes, I have all my user space pages on my watchlist. I wish the wikipedia had a smarter replacement for a single watchlist.  I'd like to manage multiple watchlists, for the different topics I am interested in.  And I would like a feature where I could pick only being informed of articles edited by others, if I touched them within the last N days.  My current watchlist has over 12,000 articles on it.  So it takes a long time to properly review, and I only do so every couple of days.


 * Thanks again for the heads-up. Geo Swan (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Ccgc des grosileurs moored at Nanisivik.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ccgc des grosileurs moored at Nanisivik.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no urgent need to add captions- often I remove images outright, and I am surprised I didn't with this one. I tag with Twinkle- sometimes it adds captions, sometimes it doesn't- in this case, it didn't. Why is it such a big deal? J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be muddling Wikipedia policy with common courtesy. There is no policy (as far as I am aware) that says that users must be informed/image uses tagged when images are tagged for deletion. I consider alerting the uploader pretty essential (and I am fairly certain I do that all the time) but I am personally not as concerned about tagging the images in articles. This is partly because the vast majority of images I tag have been uploaded within the last few hours- it's not like the images are long-standing, and there will not be numerous editors who have an interest in them being retained, and, as I said, I often remove suspicious images anyway. I think our image policies are fairly forgiving- after being notified, the uploader still has a significant amount of time to address the concerns/set the tagger straight, meaning that false positives (which are going to happen- better to have a few false positives than let bad images sit around) can be rooted out. If you are very interested in seeing image uses in articles tagged, it may be worth looking into getting a bot that will do that for editors who forget to/choose not to and (in my case) when Twinkle fails. Alternatively, you could look into having Twinkle's tagging capabilities improved. J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing format of Coast Guard Cutter pages
I see you've created several of the Coast Guard equipment pages, and I wanted to touch base with you with a proposal. Many of the U.S. Navy ship wiki entries have pages that are very nicely formatted. Nimitz class aircraft carrier is a great example of one of these ship-class pages I'd like to emulate. I think it would much easier to read. I just wanted to ask because I'm still a Wiki newbie, and didn't want to get folks mad right off the bat, especially after all your great work. Cutteragent (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ghazni and Kabul -- Afghanistan.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Ghazni and Kabul -- Afghanistan.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:17 Afghans, determined to not have been enemy combatants, released on April 20, 2005.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:17 Afghans, determined to not have been enemy combatants, released on April 20, 2005.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sergeant Heather Cerveny.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sergeant Heather Cerveny.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 18:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

ARK
ARK says he attended "Jihad Wel al-Farouq", I'm guessing that's a reference to Jihad Wahl training camp or Al Farouq training camp --- or that the two camps located outside Kandahar were possibly the same? You know a lot more about the camps than I do - any help? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Terrence McKenna documentary I think he referred to running away from several camps. Mom and dad may have sent the brothers to a camp every summer, as he said, not unlike how Canadian parents send kids to hockey camp.


 * It sounds like he is offering the Arabic names of these camp(s).


 * I know I read an article in an Indian newspaper that said that sources in Indian Intelligence said that there were more one hundred (or was it more than 200?) non-Taliban military camps in Afghanistan.


 * I am absolutely convinced that the Khaldan camp was not an al Qaida camp.


 * "Jihad" obviously means "jihad". Do you know if "al farouq" is someone's name?  Al Qaida named some camps and guest houses after dead fighters, who, presumably, someone felt were good examples, who should be honored.


 * The USA does this too. The Christopher Speer memorial medical center is a mud hut with four stretchers on the mud floor.  You'd think he merited something more impressive than a mud hut.


 * Do you know someone who can tell you what Wehl, or Wahl means? Is it possible the name is part Pashtun, part Arabic?


 * Just like practically every town in the USA has a main street, with over 100 camps there might have been many camps that had similar, or identical names. And camps can have multiple names.


 * I don't know if Indian Intelligence would consider the Uyghur camp a "military camp" -- since the occupants only had a single AK-47. In lawless Afghanistan a single AK-47 was probably insufficient for defending two dozen men from bandits.

Weird, but I clicked on it several times and it was not found, must have been a glitch, anyway I am removing this warning and the one on the image. Thanks for letting me know.— Ѕandahl 20:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC) DMacks (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the refs! DMacks (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambassadors
I'm not sure that I agree with your point; it seems to me like a Other stuff exists argument. Furthermore, this isn't really a good place to discuss this. Shall we take it over to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)? Stifle (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Very long
This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Page move
I moved Icebreaker Gunnar Thorson that you created to HDMS Gunnar Thorson (A560) per Naming conventions (ships) and Vessels in the Danish Navy. // NVO (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Darold W. Killmer
The stated reason for the prod was that it didn't indicate Mr. Killmer's notability, in that many lawyers have notable clients and/or work on notable cases without themselves thereby becoming notable. I'm sorry for not leaving you a prod warning -- but the article was there for five days without being improved, too.

Per your request, I've copied the content to your userspace at User:Geo Swan/Review/Darold W. Killmer. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NawlinWiki pretty much covers it above. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Per your request, the article history has been restored in your userspace. And I already apologized to you for the lack of prod notice -- and I apologize again.  NawlinWiki (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC
As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 17:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Image source problem with Image:Glaciallakeiroquois.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Glaciallakeiroquois.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Damiens .rf 18:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:251-Col. Cumbie.embedded.prod affiliate.56.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:251-Col. Cumbie.embedded.prod affiliate.56.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Muhammad Assad, a Yemeni who was held by the CIA.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Muhammad Assad, a Yemeni who was held by the CIA.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ezatullah (Sorubi, Nangarhar, 2001)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ezatullah (Sorubi, Nangarhar, 2001), 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Cheers, CP 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ezatullah (Sorubi, Nangarhar, 2001)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ezatullah (Sorubi, Nangarhar, 2001), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Ezatullah (Sorubi, Nangarhar, 2001). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cheers, CP 02:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Patrick M. McCarthy
An article that you have been involved in editing, Patrick M. McCarthy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Patrick M. McCarthy. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruslan Odizhev
Thanks for your additions to the article. However, there are a few things you should know about "Russian" articles on Wikipedia:

1) Russian is an inflected language, with cases such as a nominative, genitive, dative ... and prepositional. The birth places mantioned on Russian passports are naturally in the prepositional. It took me some time to find out that the guy was born in Prokhladny (an largely ethnically Russian place).

2) there are rules for transcribing names from the Cyrillic alphabet on English Wikipedia (other wikipedias use different systems). Unfortunately, not all official instances outside the Cyrillic area use those transcription rules. "Odijev", which could very easily be mispronounced by English speakers, is a French-style transcription. It may indicate that the guy was still using a Soviet Union passport, because that passport, if meant for abroad, also had a transcription in Latin letters. For political reasons I guess, the transcription did not follow English or German rules, but more or less the French ones, which explains why the "j" in this name has to be pronounced "zh". Since Ruslan Odizhev also got into the news in the West when he was living in Russia, I think the (English transcription of) the Russian form of his name should be used, particularly since the Guantanamo version got a lot wrong.

3) You added "Anatolivitch", although that is only the patronymic (father's name). It is customary not to add the patronymic to the title, except when it is necessary to distinguish between two people with the same Christian and family name.

Please check: the last time when it proved impossible to change the name back. I will contact the same admin to restore the name. Again, thans for your help. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I know only little about patronymics.  The DoD has spelled most captives' names several different ways.  The DoD has given some Guantanamo captives over a dozen names.  I don't know which name to use for this guy so your input will be appreciated.  I will make a full list of all the versions the DoD has used later this week, when I have more time.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Messages
Geo Swan: Please stop leaving messages on my Talk.

Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Patrick M. McCarthy
Hello. I noticed the debate about your article on afd and I was wondering if he is the same Patrick M. McCarthy involved in the Texas Cadet Murder case a few years ago ? I believe this particular Patrick M. McCarthy was a lieutenant commander stationed in Annapolis at the time and, according to Blind Love: The True Story of the Texas Cadet Murder by Peter Meyer, he was the officer who interrogated Diane Zamora after she confessed to the murder. 71.184.41.10 (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. My initial web search on this info turned up someone named McCarthy who was associated with the production of the TV movie, but no reference to a JAG officer named McCarthy.


 * I'll keep my eyes peeled for more connections. Maybe I will write to Zamora.


 * I think if his contact with the cadet wasn't exceptional, it doesn't add enough to the article to get anyone to change their mind about deletion.


 * Thanks for the info! Geo Swan (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Vague and insulting anonymous accusation Anti American
You are an Anti American who hates Americans / USA. Is that not wrong? If you're trying to get a point across by using Wikipedia, anti Americanism won't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.23.16 (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your accusation is (1) incorrect; (2) a breach of the wikipedia's civility policies. If you think you have meaningful specific concerns, you can feel free to leave me a civil specific message.


 * If you aren't willing to take the time to be specific about your concerns why the heck should I make any effort to respond to those concerns? Not being a mind reader how the heck could I make an effort to consider your concern?  Geo Swan (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust
They have lost another prosecutor at gitmo ---> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7635028.stm also arn't you ment to be emailing me? ( Hypnosadist ) 00:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC) The story gets more interesting with ---> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092501490.html which says "Frakt told the judge Thursday that Pentagon officials are trying to discredit Vandeveld and block his testimony. The officer who oversaw the tribunals until last week, Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, allegedly asked Vandeveld to get a psychiatric exam. But Frakt said the former prosecutor was evaluated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington last week and cleared to stay on active duty. " ( Hypnosadist )  00:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. Darrel Vandeveld.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that is dedication, much respect! ( Hypnosadist ) 02:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Talkback!
Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 13:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 05-cv-1704
A tag has been placed on 05-cv-1704 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)