User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2010-February

Proposed deletion of Fadi Ahmad


The article Fadi Ahmad has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Questionable claim of notability - no mention of significance other than being on a detainee list with 644 other names.

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. Paul_012 (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.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. Rama (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Userspace articles
GS when working on article in user space please dont add them to categories instead place a : infront of catergory. This can then be removed when the article is moved to mainspace. Gnangarra 01:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct. Please interpret any instance when I have failed to do so as an inadvertent lapse on my part.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Vocab word for the day: y'all
Hi Geo. I don't mean to come around here being condescending, but you seem to have quite upset User:Bigtimepeace, although I've tried to smooth it out a little. So my big thought in reading your convo with BTP was that you might want to generalize more, and that when you want to use a generalized "you-plural" and not, as you said, put words into anyone's mouth, use the plural form "y'all" and individual editors are far less likely to take personal offense. Just my rambling idea, mind you. As a Texan I find this word essential to conveying my thoughts sometimes. You have been the victim of a tireless prod campaign lately, but that's not BTP's fault in particular. Try, in any case, not to make things personal as nothing good comes of it! -- Kendrick7talk 02:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up.


 * Sorry for the delay in responding. I started a reply soon after your note, it grew long, possibly rambling, and my browser crashed.  That may be a blessing, because I think I recall writing, something like: "in the interests of not fanning any flames I probably should not point out" -- followed by some broad hints of what I wasn't going to point out.


 * I see four quadrants in how people comply with our civility policies and conventions:
 * There are those individuals who seem thick-skinned, who seem to sail over all but the most serious lapses in civility without harm, and never respond in kind;
 * There are individuals who also seem thick-skinned, who seem oblivious to lapses directed their way, but who also, regrettably, generate a steady stream of problematic comments themselves;
 * There are thin-skinned individuals who are very sensitive to perceived slights, who nevertheless are oblivious to the wounds they themselves deliver;
 * Finally, there are thin-skinned individuals, who are troubled by incivility directed towards them, who nevertheless manage to refrain from responding in kind.


 * I am a thin-skinned person. I see myself as one of those in the third group -- a thin-skinned person who, nonetheless, generally manages to avoid responding in kind.  As an exercise I do my best to respond as if I were in the first group, those who sail over minor incivilities, without responding in kind.


 * I re-read what BTP wrote, and what I wrote, and I honestly think I did a reasonably good job at avoiding responding in kind. In particular BTP took a quick escalation to mockery and sarcasm -- to which I think I avoided responding in kind.


 * I'll tell you a funny phenomenon. There are sexist comments I used to get, which I no longer get. My actual first name is George, not Geo.  Geo is a nickname, and I guess some people found it gender ambiguous.  I used to get some aggressive vandals, who, when cogent reasoning failed, would try to talk down to me using gender-based insults, assuming that anyone as tactful as I was must be female.  I didn't consciously choose to be more "butch".  But I no longer get gender based insults from vandals and hot-heads.


 * WRT to the horde of prod and afd notices. My writing on controversial topics has made my contributions, and me personally, a target for an inordinate share of abuse.  Some of my challengers are willing to engage in collegial discussions.  And some of them have good points for me to learn from.  Unfortunately, other challengers prove unable or unwilling to really discuss their concerns, claim their points are "obvious", etc..  A minority of my challengers have proven willing to totally violate all the wikipedia's policies to push their POV.  Half a dozen or so of my rudest and most persistent challengers turned out to be sock-puppets, and have been permanently blocked.


 * Anyhow, thanks for trying to be a peace-maker.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, OK. I myself, even though I expect to be on your side in regards to preservationist issues, wholly regard sarcasm and ridicule to be among my top rhetorical weapons (I am, after all, a Bostonian). Frankly, you need to be willing to incite the mobile vulgar to get half of anything done around here, and pick up a few cheerleaders for your side of things. What we do here isn't pretty. There used to be an essay, one of our early ones, called WP:GROWAPAIR, which certain pussywillows got removed. But look, we're in a War, against those who think knowledge is only for some, and those who believe knowledge is the human right of all. Come to my side and kick some ! -- Kendrick7talk 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A certain amount of mockery has a place. But, when I am not emotionally engaged, it is not one of my top tools, for various reasons -- including one I mentioned in the essay I am working on, User:Geo Swan/on apologies.  A couple of decades ago, I allowed myself to be aggressive with some correspondents who seemed to disagree with me, when I thought my limited experience, or one or two courses, meant I knew better than they did on the topic under discussion.  I found it very embarrassing the handful of times when it turned out that (1) I was dead wrong; and (2) my correspondent was a bona fide expert -- a professor in that field, or someone with decades of experience in that field, or both.  I looked back at other instances, when I had also been full of confidence that I was right, but had confined my responses to tactfully phrased questions -- only to find that my correspondent did know what they were talking about, and I didn't.  I found those instances a shattering relief -- as my attempts to be tactful to them had saved me a huge embarrassment.  My attempts to be tactful had hidden my hubris and over-confidence.  And, when it turned out my over-confidence was wildly out of place it was hidden from anyone else.  I found I had little trouble acknowledging the other guy was right, or made good points, when I hadn't put my over-confidence on record through the use of misplaced sarcasm.


 * More recently I hope that those who disagree with me will nevertheless try to enter into a genuine discussion with me. Genuine discussions, where one party actually changes their position, are quite rare in our deletion discussions.  It does happen sometimes.  It happens more often on talk pages, but it is still rare there.  One of my favorite correspondents is a guy who I disagree with over a lot of issues.  But I respect that he is intellectually honest.  He does his best to acknowledge when I have made a good point.  And I do my best to acknowledge when he has made a good point.  During our correspondence he has made many good points, for which I have been grateful.  I have other correspondents who have been intellectually honest, and prepared to really engage in genuine discussions, where neither one of us has changed our position (yet).  But I honor them too.  You may have noticed there are people who seem to show up at afds solely because it is an article I originally started, who won't honestly engage in a dialogue, will misquote policies, will characterize essays as policies, will mischaracterize the arguments they disagree with, will use personal attacks.


 * It seems to me that the problem with using mockery and sarcasm, unless one already has a pretty strong bond of trust and liking with someone, is that once it has been let out of the bag you can more or less kiss goodbye to any chance that either you or your correspondent can admit a mistake. Well, some correspondents are hopeless about admitting mistakes, or even about avoiding cheap rhetorical tricks if they think they can get away with it.  Even with them I think there are arguments in favor of not responding in kind.  The benefit of taking the high road is that even if one loses that particular argument one hasn't damaged one's own credibility.  If I respond in kind casual observers may only notice a pair of problematic arguers, and fail to notice I was provoked.  Worse, they might be more practiced at this, and they might have left rude provocations that wouldn't be apparent to a casual reader -- only to me.  In that case the casual observer sees just one problematic arguer -- me.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I happened to notice this, and, though it is a week late, there's a comment I need to make:it is not actually considered acceptable to use sarcasm here. I wish it were--I'm quite good at it.  But for the very reason that many people cannot reply to it with skill, it's considered unfair, and also gets the person attacked very angry because they do not know how to reply within their capabilities. . I've been called on it a few times. I dont think mockery ever acceptable here or anywhere, and I won't use it.  DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Baffinland Iron Mine
This story may interest you...--kelapstick (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was interesting. Thanks for drawing it to my attention.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

placement, editing
Hi Geo. Tx for your recent addition to Awlaki. I wonder, looking at it, if its in quite the right place, though, as I don't see how it relates to the header of that section. Perhaps it needs to be moved? Also, the reference to mistreatment by the Americans while in custody might bear amplification if we are to keep it, as there is no ref to him ever having been in U.S. custody. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Icebreaker Hindenburg


The article Icebreaker Hindenburg has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable ship; it sank; big whoop

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. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Icebreaker_Araon_on_her_maiden_voyage,_off_Cape_Burks,_Antarctica.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Icebreaker_Araon_on_her_maiden_voyage,_off_Cape_Burks,_Antarctica.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. feydey (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Ashara guest house
I have nominated Ashara guest house, 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/Ashara guest house. 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. Prezbo (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ship articles
I saw your recent creation of USNS Fisher (T-AKR-301) and would request that before you create any additional ship articles to please thoroughly read WikiProject Ships/Guidelines because your articles on ships are sorely lacking in their quality and all of them require extensive clean-up by an established wikipedian who edits these topics which will take lots of time. -MBK004 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Waterboarding in the 21st century
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Waterboarding in the 21st century. 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/Waterboarding in the 21st century (2nd nomination). 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, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alina Balaican
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alina Balaican. 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/Alina Balaican. 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) 01:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)