User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2010-April

Your recent edit
Could you please check one of your recent edits. That might not belong there. IQinn (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You are editing other pages now so could you please have a look at this link? Because you are a long term user i do not assume you are a vandal and made a mistake without noting it so could you please fix it. IQinn (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * fixed, thanks Geo Swan (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Andrew purvis's sidebar -- 'The Suspects- A Bosnian subplot.png
Thank you for uploading File:Andrew purvis's sidebar -- 'The Suspects- A Bosnian subplot.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

NO INDEX
You promised to add the no index template to your user space pages. Specially you promised to add it to the list of pages i gave you. Unfortunately many of these pages still miss this tag after many months. I have left you further messages on your talk about this and with the request that other user could help and add the tag for you as it looks like you are to busy. You did not answer my questions and removed the post from your talk page. Could you please let me and other user add this template to the hundreds of your user pages about the controversial Guantanamo topic? IQinn (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not agree to you editing any pages under  User:Geo Swan/*  and  User talk:Geo Swan/*  -- with the exception of the handful of pages where I have already explicitly invited your comments.


 * I add noindex tags to the pages in my user space, as I use pages in my notes that don't have them. I also occassionally devote half an hour to adding noindex to pages I don't use regularly.  Eventually, all the pages will be taken care of.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your Guantanamo related user space article are a problem as they frequently show up high in the search results. I do not think your user space article that border propaganda should represent Wikipedia on this controversial topic. I might take this to the community if you do not show a greater effort in adding these tags. IQinn (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ron h jones (Talk) 20:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

URL Change
Yes, details at WP:AWB. Authorisation is needed but is readily given. You just need to craft a suitable regular expression or search and replace, find a away of identifying the relevant pages and you are pretty much there. Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of The Bush Six


The article The Bush Six has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * per WP:NOT, wp:npov, wp:blp. This amounts to an article covering a short-lived investigation that went nowhere, which repeats negative, highly controversial and potentially defamatory information about living persons.

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  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  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. Ray Talk 03:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Mehdi_Muhammed_Ghezali's_passport_photo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Mehdi_Muhammed_Ghezali's_passport_photo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

NOINDEX
Thank's for the work to add the NOINDEX tag to some of your user space pages. Unfortunately there are still at least hundreds of pages that do not have the tag, many of therm are about controversial topics. I have ask you if other user could add the tag to the pages in your user space when they come across of these pages. You rejected this and you suggested i should leave you a list of these pages on your talk page. I did this month ago but some of them have not be fixed until now and i frequently come across pages without tag. I still think it would be the best you would allow other editors to add these tags. The problem only looks to grow larger as you created new pages recently without adding the tag. I am going to leave a few pages now and i will continue to do so until the problem has been solved and i would notice that it would be less work for everybody if you would not reject the friendly offer of other editors to just simply add the tag when they come across these pages. IQinn (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees/ISN_400-499
 * User:Geo_Swan/working/Boudella_el_Hajj
 * User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/wiki_disagreements/Yakub_Abahanov
 * User:Geo_Swan/working/Indentation_primer
 * User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/list_of_lead_petitioners
 * User:Geo_Swan/working/Possibly_interesting_links_to_check_later
 * User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo_staff_life
 * User:Geo_Swan/working/csrt_allegations
 * User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Taliban Bounty list
 * User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Taliban uniform
 * User:Geo Swan/review/Al Qaida facilitator


 * WRT the message on my talk page. I am sorry i do not really understand what you mean? IQinn (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of The Bush Six
I have nominated The Bush Six, 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 Articles for deletion/The Bush Six. 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. Ray Talk 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Be careful with edit summaries
Following this edit summary. Please have a look at this Avoiding incivility. So can avoid this in the future. IQinn (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Another one. Be careful with edit summaries Please have a look again at this Avoiding incivility. IQinn (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Another one that falls under Avoiding incivility. Please stop this. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Another one that falls under Avoiding incivility. Your edit summaries are problematic. Please have a look again at avoiding incivility. Thank you IQinn (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I request User:Iqinn to be more careful with their warnings. The diff they object to closes with a comment from User:Iqinn.
 * The diff shows that this is an edit that User:Iqinn had themselves suggested. Geo Swan (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Out of context quote. Your edits are not the problem. Your uncivil edit summaries are. IQinn (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Iqinn asserts that they are being misrepresented so often I have decided not to offer specific replies to each assertion. Instead I decided to link to a single reply on their talk page.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I trimmed an uncivil comment. Geo Swan (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am trimming this comment which I believe lapses from WP:NPA. Geo Swan (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC


 * I am not attacking you. I think it should be possible to speak openly if there are problems. I am sorry i do not think that my comment here was uncivil nor a personal attack. I am sorry when you felt that way but i do not see it and i never intended it. I asked you to be more careful with edit summaries in the future. Can you? Or do you doubt that this comment your comment was not uncivil? IQinn (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi
FYI - In this edit it looks like you accidentally blanked the old part of the page. I have undone that and added your comment to the bottom. Please have a look to make sure this is what you wanted. Thanks. 7 23:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mohabat Khan v. Bush


The article Mohabat Khan v. Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as only secondary source refers to a different case. Should likely redirect to that case, Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mahmud Idris v. George W. Bush


The article Mahmud Idris v. George W. Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mahmud Salem Horan Mohammed Mutlak Al Ali v. George Walker Bush


The article Mahmud Salem Horan Mohammed Mutlak Al Ali v. George Walker Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mamdouh Ibrahim Ahmed Habib v. George Bush


The article Mamdouh Ibrahim Ahmed Habib v. George Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mamet v. Bush


The article Mamet v. Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as only secondary source refers to a different case. Should likely redirect to that case, Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Saleh Abdall Al Oshan v. George W. Bush


The article Saleh Abdall Al Oshan v. George W. Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as only secondary source refers to a different case. Should likely redirect to that case, Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sliti v. Bush


The article Sliti v. Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sohail v. Bush


The article Sohail v. Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as only secondary source refers to a different case. Should likely redirect to that case, Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sharifullah v. George W. Bush


The article Sharifullah v. George W. Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Salim Muhood Adem v. George W. Bush


The article Salim Muhood Adem v. George W. Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Salim Gherebi v. George Walker Bush


The article Salim Gherebi v. George Walker Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Salam Abdullah Said v. George W. Bush


The article Salam Abdullah Said v. George W. Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Saifullah Paracha v. George W. Bush


The article Saifullah Paracha v. George W. Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sadkhan v. Bush


The article Sadkhan v. Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What's to discuss?
They all fail notability guidelines. 95% of the sources are primary sources which confer zero notability, and the other non-primary sources are almost always the standard mention of the one case from a Boston Globe article. I'm sure a few of these cases are notable (not the ones I'm tagging, but cases on the detainees), but otherwise rarely do we write articles on writs (or at least specific cases where someone has filed a writ) and unless there are the secondary, independent sources required by our general notability guidelines then they need to be deleted/redirected. If these became cases in the Federal Register or SCOTUS cases, then maybe, but then there will end up being more secondary sources about those cases, including plenty of law review articles. Portions of What Wikipedia is Not is another good place to look at why many of these need to be deleted. I would suggest focusing the energy on producing a few comprehensive, high-quality articles on this general area rather than what really look like form-letter types of articles (insert defendant name here, insert judge name here, insert lawyer name here, insert bit about Boumediene v. Bush here). Otherwise, add third-party, independent, published, non-primary sources that have comprehensive coverage of each of the individual cases. If you can find/add those, then the articles will pass NOTE. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Geo, I think there might be a  problem defending most of these. But they make added content for the articles on the individual prisoners, and it might even  be possible to use it to add to and restore some of the deleted ones   DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Different contributors range in the obligations they recognize for doing a basic web-search prior nominating an article for deletion. Some nominators skip doing any kind of web-search.  Some will spend 15 seconds or 30 seconds first, on the principle that it is the topic's notability, not the current state of the article, that matters when considering when to nominate article for deletion.  I spent that 30 seconds with Paracha's habeas:
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! date || notes
 * 2007-06-20 ||
 * The Circuit Court, however, was already moving with some dispatch to resolve those cases, because the first of the actual appeals in a DTA case is under a briefing schedule beginning on July 16, with an oral argument set for Sept. 27 That is the case of Paracha v. Bush (06-1038). (The Paracha case is also on its way to the Supreme Court, on the same questions about detainee legal rights as in Boumediene and Al Odah, with an appeal likely to be filed early in July.)
 * The Circuit Court, however, was already moving with some dispatch to resolve those cases, because the first of the actual appeals in a DTA case is under a briefing schedule beginning on July 16, with an oral argument set for Sept. 27 That is the case of Paracha v. Bush (06-1038). (The Paracha case is also on its way to the Supreme Court, on the same questions about detainee legal rights as in Boumediene and Al Odah, with an appeal likely to be filed early in July.)


 * 2007-07-05 ||
 * Lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees have asked the D.C. Circuit Court to put its Feb. 20 ruling against them back on hold, while the Supreme Court reviews that case in the coming Term. In a motion filed Monday and cleared for public view on Tuesday, the attorneys urged the appeals court to recall the mandate in Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. U.S. The motion also covered another detainee case, Paracha v. Bush, that is on its way to the Supreme Court from the D.C. Circuit.
 * Lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees have asked the D.C. Circuit Court to put its Feb. 20 ruling against them back on hold, while the Supreme Court reviews that case in the coming Term. In a motion filed Monday and cleared for public view on Tuesday, the attorneys urged the appeals court to recall the mandate in Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. U.S. The motion also covered another detainee case, Paracha v. Bush, that is on its way to the Supreme Court from the D.C. Circuit.


 * 2007-07-11 ||
 * The first official determination of an “enemy combatant” status to be directly reviewed in a civilian court will come in the D.C. Circuit Court in the case of Paracha v. Gates (Circuit docket 06-1038). Up to this point, court cases on detainee affairs have focused on what kinds of legal rights, if any, detainees have to challenge their continued confinement at Guantanamo after being found to be “enemy combatants.”
 * The first official determination of an “enemy combatant” status to be directly reviewed in a civilian court will come in the D.C. Circuit Court in the case of Paracha v. Gates (Circuit docket 06-1038). Up to this point, court cases on detainee affairs have focused on what kinds of legal rights, if any, detainees have to challenge their continued confinement at Guantanamo after being found to be “enemy combatants.”


 * 2007-07-18 ||
 * Lawyers for a Pakistani citizen who has a permanent U.S. resident visa but is now a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, has urged the D.C. Circuit Court either to order his unconditional release, or else probe deeply into the operation of the military program for keeping detainees in the military prison camp on Cuba. The brief — the first formal arguments in the first case of civilian court review of a detainee’s designation as an “enemy combatant” — was filed on Monday, but made available on Wednesday after a security review. The brief in Paracha v. Gates (Circuit docket 06-1038) is here, and the appendix here. The government’s response is due Aug. 15, a detainee reply is set for Aug. 31, and an oral argument is set for Sept. 17.
 * Lawyers for a Pakistani citizen who has a permanent U.S. resident visa but is now a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, has urged the D.C. Circuit Court either to order his unconditional release, or else probe deeply into the operation of the military program for keeping detainees in the military prison camp on Cuba. The brief — the first formal arguments in the first case of civilian court review of a detainee’s designation as an “enemy combatant” — was filed on Monday, but made available on Wednesday after a security review. The brief in Paracha v. Gates (Circuit docket 06-1038) is here, and the appendix here. The government’s response is due Aug. 15, a detainee reply is set for Aug. 31, and an oral argument is set for Sept. 17.


 * 2007-07-20 ||
 * Thus, the procedures spelled out in Friday’s opinion will begin immediately to affect the first case challenging a CSRT decision — a case now proceeding in the Circuit Court on the merits, aiming toward a Sept. 17 hearing (Paracha v. Gates, 06-1038).
 * Thus, the procedures spelled out in Friday’s opinion will begin immediately to affect the first case challenging a CSRT decision — a case now proceeding in the Circuit Court on the merits, aiming toward a Sept. 17 hearing (Paracha v. Gates, 06-1038).


 * 2007-08-11 ||
 * The D.C. Circuit Court on Friday ordered the Justice Department fo provide a broader file of information for the Circuit Court to review as it considers the first case by a Guantanamo Bay detainee challenging a military decision to keep him confined as an “enemy combatant.” In a one-page order in Paracha v. Gates (docket 06-1038), the Circuit Court also interrupted a briefing schedule that was under way, and ordered a new schedule that would not be completed until Dec. 7. It also scuttled a plan to hold a hearing in that case on Sept. 17.
 * The D.C. Circuit Court on Friday ordered the Justice Department fo provide a broader file of information for the Circuit Court to review as it considers the first case by a Guantanamo Bay detainee challenging a military decision to keep him confined as an “enemy combatant.” In a one-page order in Paracha v. Gates (docket 06-1038), the Circuit Court also interrupted a briefing schedule that was under way, and ordered a new schedule that would not be completed until Dec. 7. It also scuttled a plan to hold a hearing in that case on Sept. 17.


 * 2007-08-20 ||
 * It was in the Paracha case that the government filed its stay request on Monday. It said it will decide by a Sept. 13 deadline whether to seek rehearing in the Bismullah/Parhat case. But Sept. 13 is also the current deadline for the government to hand over to lawyers for Saifullah Paracha the much more expansive file of information that the Bismullah/Parhat ruling seems to require.
 * It was in the Paracha case that the government filed its stay request on Monday. It said it will decide by a Sept. 13 deadline whether to seek rehearing in the Bismullah/Parhat case. But Sept. 13 is also the current deadline for the government to hand over to lawyers for Saifullah Paracha the much more expansive file of information that the Bismullah/Parhat ruling seems to require.


 * 2007-09-05 ||
 * The two sides in the first court review of military decisions to keep detainees confined at Guatanamo Bay, Cuba, continued this week to dispute how rapidly that first test case should move in the D.C. Circuit Court. Lawyers for the detainee involved, Saifullah Paracha, on Tuesday urged the Court to deny a Justice Department request for more time to file documents seeking to justify Paracha’s continued imprisonment. On Wednesday, the Department responded, arguing that it simply cannot meet a court-imposed filing deadline.
 * The two sides in the first court review of military decisions to keep detainees confined at Guatanamo Bay, Cuba, continued this week to dispute how rapidly that first test case should move in the D.C. Circuit Court. Lawyers for the detainee involved, Saifullah Paracha, on Tuesday urged the Court to deny a Justice Department request for more time to file documents seeking to justify Paracha’s continued imprisonment. On Wednesday, the Department responded, arguing that it simply cannot meet a court-imposed filing deadline.


 * 2007-09-12 ||
 * The D.C. Circuit Court at mid-afternoon Wednesday suspended an important deadline for the government in the most recent detainees’ case, saying it will take time to decide whether to reconsider en banc an earlier ruling that had led it to impose that deadline. That action could delay the prospect that the controversy would swiftly move on to the Supreme Court.
 * The D.C. Circuit Court at mid-afternoon Wednesday suspended an important deadline for the government in the most recent detainees’ case, saying it will take time to decide whether to reconsider en banc an earlier ruling that had led it to impose that deadline. That action could delay the prospect that the controversy would swiftly move on to the Supreme Court.


 * 2007-10-09 ||
 * Meanwhile, the government also filed on Tuesday a reply to a pending petition in the Supreme Court by a Guantanamo detainee who claims permanent U.S. resident status (Paracha v. Bush, 07-153). Arguing that Saifullah Paracha, a Pakistani national and citizen, has forfeited his permanent resident status by leaving the U.S., Clement contended that he should not be treated any differently in legal terms than other aliens at Guantanamo. The brief in opposition urges the Court to hold the case until after it decides the Boumediene/Al Odah cases.
 * Meanwhile, the government also filed on Tuesday a reply to a pending petition in the Supreme Court by a Guantanamo detainee who claims permanent U.S. resident status (Paracha v. Bush, 07-153). Arguing that Saifullah Paracha, a Pakistani national and citizen, has forfeited his permanent resident status by leaving the U.S., Clement contended that he should not be treated any differently in legal terms than other aliens at Guantanamo. The brief in opposition urges the Court to hold the case until after it decides the Boumediene/Al Odah cases.


 * 2008-01-10 ||
 * The only review of the CSRTs’ work is by the D.C. Circuit, under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, rather than through traditional habeas challenges. The Circuit Court is moving ahead with the first of the DTA challenges, that of Paracha v. Gates (06-1038).
 * The only review of the CSRTs’ work is by the D.C. Circuit, under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, rather than through traditional habeas challenges. The Circuit Court is moving ahead with the first of the DTA challenges, that of Paracha v. Gates (06-1038).


 * 2008-02-12 ||
 * The Circuit Court, so far, has not moved forward to consider even one such review on the merits; the lead case in the pipeline (Paracha v. Gates, Circuit docket 06-1038) has been pending two years. It is one of the dozen or so cases in which the government is now seeking delay while it makes its planned trip to the Supreme Court.
 * The Circuit Court, so far, has not moved forward to consider even one such review on the merits; the lead case in the pipeline (Paracha v. Gates, Circuit docket 06-1038) has been pending two years. It is one of the dozen or so cases in which the government is now seeking delay while it makes its planned trip to the Supreme Court.


 * }
 * The problem with these as this is not "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. These are passing mentions (i.e. trivial coverage) in the SCOTUS blog. Significant coverage is where the entire article or a substantial portion of a large article or a whole book or a chapter in a book is devoted to that topic. Not a mere mention. I'm not saying there might not be that significant coverage, there very well may be hidden behind pay walls at various law journals/reviews. But 50 trivial mentions of a case do not make it notable. If that were the case, I'd be notable, and trust me when I say I am not. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No offense, but I am afraid it looks like you didn't actually click on any of the links to paracha articles I supplied. I think if you did you would find that these articles do address Paracha's case in detail.  Look, we are all human.  We are all just volunteers, who do this work in our free time.  Did I make a mistake, have a blind spot when I started these articles?  Maybe.


 * We need to recognize our fallibility, and be gracious when someone draws our mistakes and our blind spots to our attention. I suggest this is a lot easier for everyone involved when everyone makes an effort to discuss our concerns in a collegial manner.  A serious response to a nomination for deletion can be a lot of work.  As a courtesy to other contributors would you please consider not nominating article after article for deletion with a delay of just one minute between them, as you did here?  When you have left two or three notices of nominations for deletion on a single good-faith contributor's talk page, within as many minutes, don't you think it might be a good idea to pause to discuss your concerns with them directly?


 * How many individual habeas petitions does it make sense to have individual articles about? Fewer than I created.  Maybe a lot fewer.  My mistake.  A blind spot.  You get caught up in a certain rythym and lose sight of the forest, focussing on the individual trees.


 * I was told, a year ago, that only those cases that made their way all the way to the Supreme Court merit an individual article. I don't agree with this.  Others merit coverage, for various reasons.  Paracha is the first habeas petition where his lawyer's launched an appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals after the Military Commissions Act of 2006 stayed the outstanding habeas petitions.  It received significant coverage as the lead case.  So, while I made some mistakes, I think you did too.  Please consider whether the Paracha prod suggests you placed these prod tags without doing meaningful web-searches on the topics first.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First, yes, some people spend time searching for sources before nominating articles for deletion, and I actually do that as well. However, here, these are PRODs, and I do not always search for sources before prodding them (as in at AfD you are supposed to check for sources, but the same is not suggested for PRODs). The reason is simple, anyone can remove the PROD and the deletion is not binding, as in if an article is deleted through the PROD process, the article can be re-created the next minute without any need for a deletion review or any other process. Here, someone went and tagged 50+ of these articles with the WPLAW template and I went around to assess them, as I keep that que empty. In the process I came across articles with way too many redlinks (most lawyers are not notable nor spokespeople) and pretty much nothing but primary sources. In their then state, they failed NOTE, and going from experience, court cases that have not made it to the appellate level are not notable, so why waste time for each searching for sources that likely do not exist. And I did not have the time nor absolutely any inclination to go in and clean up somebody else's problem. You see, I make sure all the articles I write pass muster, spending lots of time on them instead (which saves people time by not having to clean up my work too much). As in, as you point out, we are all volunteers and I don't like having to clean up so much after others.
 * Next, as to the template messages, you must not be familiar with many of our tools. The PRODing was done using our automated tools, thus I clicked a tab on the article and the system did the rest. As in I never visited your page at that time, and had no idea these were all written by the same editor. So, yes, my error there.
 * As to Paracha, I actually did look at the first link, and I stand by my assessment. It is trivial coverage of the Paracha case. The other links you provide do provide more, enough to question if the case on its own is notable. I would however suggest higher quality sources than SCOTUSBLOG, something along the lines of peer reviewed, as the article appears to be dealing with living people. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. with the header for this section, the question is very valid. As I said above, anyone (that includes you) can remove the PROD, no need to discuss it with anyone. That is one way, the other is to simply improve the article to the point where the concern is no longer valid. Again, nothing to discuss. These were not personal attacks on you, just the state of those articles in relation to our inclusion criteria. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Talk:Icebreaker Semyon Dezhnev
Hi Geo Swan, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Talk:Icebreaker Semyon Dezhnev. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot  (msg) 00:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Tahir Mahmood Ashrafi
Hi, I have userfied the article to User:Geo Swan/review/Tahir Mahmood Ashrafi (I'm not sure this is the person you are looking for, but I guess it is best to leave you decide whether or not you can do something with it). Good luck! :). -- Luk  talk 15:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif
I have nominated Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif, 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 Articles for deletion/Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif. 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. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jihad Ahmed Mujstafa Diyab
A tag has been placed on Jihad Ahmed Mujstafa Diyab requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. AriTotle (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Khan v. Bush (Civil Action No. 05-cv-2466)


The article Khan v. Bush (Civil Action No. 05-cv-2466) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.

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  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  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. IQinn (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please stop...
You just created multiple redirects like this. Could you please explain why you think they are correct. The whole thing reminds me a bit on WP:POINT as we just had some discussions about dehumanizing an individual one just very recently. I think these name variations should be linked directly to the article of the individual and not to his ISN number as you have done. IQinn (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a robot that fixes double redirects. Using  #redirect ISN Nnn  is convenient.  The robot usually fixes them in an hour or three, and it saves me about 30 seconds per redirect.


 * I am mystified as to why you would accuse me of WP:POINT. You are very reckless about accusing good faith contributors of bad faith. Geo Swan (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not accuse you i told you that this reminds me on WP:POINT. I have no doubt you are a good faith contributors. But also take in consideration that that came within hours after we had discussions about "dehumanizing" and another on my talk page about dehumanizing redirections.


 * Linking directly to the article by hand does not take more than a second more time as the ISN has been linked already to the article. I highly suggest you directly link to the article and not to the ISN, as it still leaves a record in the history and it sometimes takes more than a few hours for bots to fix this troublesome redirects and robots are not always reliable they might get not fixed for a long time. I know you are a good faith contributor and i hope you you will link directly to the articles in the future. IQinn (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are still mass creating these redirects while this discussion here is ongoing. Please stop for the moment and let's try to find consensus. IQinn (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What is there to discuss? I offered you a perfectly reasonable explanation.
 * See these examples:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Refstart&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EpochFail/Research_is_good_for_Wikipedia&action=history
 * I copied this table from Andy Worthington's paper on hunger strikers: User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/hunger strikers. Worthington is an WP:RS.  His transliterations should redirect to the articles.  But we got along for four years without these redirects.  So what if it takes a few hours for the robot to catch up to me?  I believe letting the robot do the work is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For the fixing no i disagree it often takes more than a few hours sometimes days and sometimes never. These redirects are troublesome even they stay there only for hours. As i said it does not take more than a second to directly link to the article and i would appreciate if you could do so in the future. Writing and encyclopedia is not only about saving a few seconds. We need to be careful and responsible. I think it is a reasonable request that you do not to create more of this troublesome redirects and to link directly to the article. IQinn (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I just saw that you have created about a dozen more of these redirects just now while the discussion is still ongoing. One more time stop this and discuss and try to reach consensus first. IQinn (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't you have a couple of hundred naked URLs you left to fix up?


 * Any the robot hasn't taken care of in 24 hours I will do by hand. Happy?  Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure we will get your and my staff from the past fixed. It would just be nice if you could agree not to create more of these types of redirects in the future. IQinn (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_al-Amin&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayoub_Saleh&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bashir_al-Marwalah&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdul_Aziz_al-Noofayee&action=history
 * Once again I urge you to make a greater effort to use more moderate, less inflammatory language with good faith contributors. Geo Swan (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Same for me i urge you also to make a greater effort to use more moderate less inflammatory language with good faith contributors. IQinn (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's be real here. I spent months bending over backwards not to press the idiosyncratic triggers you have identified distress you.  My record shows I have worked extremely hard, and made a genuine effort, trying to parse what you might have meant from what you actually wrote.


 * In return you routinely violate WP:AGF and leap to the worst possible explanation that assumes bad faith on my part -- as you did here.


 * You continue to cast dark hints that there is something generally wrong with my contributions -- just because much of the wikipedia's coverage of the Guantanamo captives started with my contributions. In December, I pointed out to you when you became the contributor who has made the second largest number of edits to this material, and you reacted defensively -- as if I had leveled a personal attack against you.


 * As I wrote above, you routinely violate WP:AGF and leap to the worst possible explanation that assumes bad faith on my part. And your defensive response to my observation in December was another instance of this.  My point was that all those dark hints you made about the very large number of edits that I had made to the Guantanamo articles should then have applied with equal strength to you.


 * In your response to my point you asserted that there was nothing wrong with you making a large number of edits. In general I agree -- there is nothing wrong with a single contributor, or a small group of contributors, making a large number of edits to a topic or series of related topics, provided those contrbutors do their best to comply with all our policies.


 * I believe my record shows I both make an extra effort to comply with all our policies, because I recognized the topics were controversial, and an extra effort to give civil meaningful responses to all civil, specific questions and challenges over my contributions.


 * It is long past the point where you should have stopped your offensive practice of darkly hinting that there was something generally wrong with my body of contributions. Yet you continued to drop those dark hints on BLPN just a few days ago.


 * You also suggested that I was a paid employee or contracted worker, working under someone else's direction, subverting the wikipedia's goals without regard to its policies and collective goals. This is a suggestion that, if true, would imply truly shocking bad faith and a serious conflict of interest on my part.  If this suggestion were true, and were taken seriously, the WMF would permanently block me from contributing here.  Your suggestion is utterly and completely off-base, and was, in my opinion, a very serious lapse from WP:NPA.


 * If these lapses, from just this week, represent your best efforts to comply with our civility policies, then I really urge to think more deeply about how you could learn to cooperate more collegially in future. Geo Swan (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Uighur house
Hello Geo Swan, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Uighur house, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Iqinn. This has been done because the page is either pure vandalism or a blatant hoax (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add " " to the page text, and edit the to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Iqinn. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of 06:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wazim (terror suspect)


The article Wazim (terror suspect) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * From little value but problematic under WP:BLP and WP:TERRORIST

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  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  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. IQinn (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abdul Haq (Uighur camp leader)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Abdul Haq (Uighur camp leader). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Abdul Haq (Uighur camp leader). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)