User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2010-January

File copyright problem with File:Photo of Guantanamo captive Issa Khan in 2002.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Photo of Guantanamo captive Issa Khan in 2002.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.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 04:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please stop your edit war
Could you please stop your edit war and instead answer the outstanding discussions and questions. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Philip Bloom
I have nominated Philip Bloom, 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/Philip Bloom. 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. Ash (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop your edit war now
This topic is under discussion and you have been warned multiple times. Please stop your edit war over many pages like here IQinn (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You also reverted here and on other pages. These topics are under discussion but you refuse to discuss and to answer questions. IQinn (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Iqinn, please do not add obnoxious templates to userpages - it is bordering on incivility - especially given the frequency with which you accuse long-standing editors of "edit warring" with you whenever they undo a removal you made; even if it is the first time and they have left you polite notes on talk pages. In almost five years of editing, I have never seen a suggestion of Geo_Swan being involved in an edit war - and I highly doubt he has gotten into 11 edit wars with you in the last three weeks. More likely, you're trying to appeal to some misplaced sense of authority to command him to fall in line with your thinking and hoping that spurious warnings will cow him. I'd advise against that course of action, and encourage you to work with editors you consider in opposition to you to improve the project, rather than simply try and force them to allow you to shape it as you see fit. There are millions of us here, you're just one more drop in the ocean. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sherurcij, we know you and Geo Swan have closely worked together in the past and i understand you want to defend him. But it does not matter how long somebody already edit Wikipedia. He is refusing to discuss the topics and he is refusing to answer questions. Instead he is reverting on multiple pages. That is exactly what we call edit war and the warning template is exactly the right one for this. I have ask so often in a more friendly way. IQinn (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you point to a page he has reverted more than three times in a 24-hour period? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As someone who has been blocked for edit warring himself and may have read the warning template you should know that this is not the only definition for an edit war. He has reverted similar edits on many pages in recent days that are under discussion. And he has been told and warned about that. At the same time he is refusing to answer questions and to discuss these issues and keeps reverting. Exactly the definition for edit warring. You may re-read the policies that forbids edit warring generally and that tells you that editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR. IQinn (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
You are currently adding links that are controversial and under discussion: here, here, here, here. You know that these kind of links are under discussion. I must say i found it very disruptive that you do not discuss the topic here and instead adds more of these links instead - that's disruptive.

Also i must say that i find your comment to this talk page not helpful.

I just wanted to let you know that. IQinn (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Iqinn, I urge you to stop making links to regular wikipedia pages look like diffs -- it is confusing and gives the appearance of bad faith
Iqinn, I urge you to stop making links to regular wikipedia pages look like diffs -- it is confusing and gives the appearance of bad faith

I say it gives the appearance of bad faith, or could give the appearance of bad faith, because a lot of experienced wikipedia contributors feel they can trust that when other wikipedia contributors imply they have diffs, and supply links that look like diffs, those diffs do in fact substantiate their claims. You write about things you have written elsewhere that imply you have diffs, and supply links that look like diffs -- which aren't diffs. This isn't just confusing -- it is likely to make people less familiar with you than I am think that you intended to deceive your readers into thinking you could supply those diffs.

I think you didn't intend to deceive anyone. I think that, in spite of eight months of participation here, and close to 10,000 edits, you somehow missed learning the different ways we link to external references, to diffs, and to regular wikipedia pages. I think you honestly don't realize the appearance of bad faith your freqent use things that you look like diffs could give.

Iqinn, you are thin-skinned. You take offense quickly. The previous three paragraphs may have made you angry. I urge you to set aside that anger, because it is not just me -- I can't help noticing that your communication with many, perhaps even most, of your wikipedia correspondents ends up acrimonious. I honestly think that if you follow the advice I am about to give you it will help curb the tendency for your correspondence to end up acrimonious.

The particular link you used was:
 *  Talk:Asim_Thahit_Abdullah_Al_Khalaqi#Comment your comment 

This should really have been a regular wikilink
 *  Talk:Asim_Thahit_Abdullah_Al_Khalaqi 

That renders as Talk:Asim_Thahit_Abdullah_Al_Khalaqi.
 * Note: two nested brackets.
 * Note: the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ prefix is removed.

From the context you meant to put http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asim_Thahit_Abdullah_Al_Khalaqi&diff=337480324&oldid=337479855 inside the single brackets to get your comment.

Iqinn, I encourage you to conform to the conventions on how experienced wikipedia contributor signal that they have diffs, and only use the wording that implies you are supplying diffs when you really are supplying diffs. If you are merely supplying a regular wikilink, or a link to a subheading within a wikipedia pages, I encourage you to make that a regular wikilink.

I repeat that I honestly believe this step will help you with your communication with all your wikipedia correspondents, not just with me.

I repeat that I honestly believe your intention was not deceitful.

Please understand that, although, intellectually, I believe your intent was not deceitful, nevertheless my first response to discovering that what looked like a diff, wasn't a diff is the same kind of annoyance I think you can expect from all your experienced correspondents. We all have a limited store of good will that we can expend when we try to assume good faith. Please don't cause me to expend my limited store of good faith by not bothering to conform to our conventions, when it would be trivial for you to do so.

FWIW, I remember your recent comment that I thought I was a know-it-all. FWIW, I think most people would agree that comment was a clear lapse from WP:NPA. I did not give you this advice to belittle you, or otherwise act like a know-it-all. I honestly believe that informing you of easily avoidable triggers will make your communication with all your corrspondents go more smoothly. Geo Swan (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon Geo Swan but i think one or to brackets do not make the big difference and there are perfect diffs to show what i wanted to show to you. These links bring you exactly to the intended section. I will put it here again and you might argue about the content of my post instead of arguing about the person or minor form issue. The links bring you exactly to the right place and to suggest it would be bad faith on my side to use one bracket instead of two is by best... Really i was always and will be always open for advise from other editors but your message here with this extensive heading bold passages and extensive name calling (what is uncivil) looks by best not helpful for me and i might not speculate about the real reason for that. You are more than welcome to address the content of my message:


 * You are currently adding links that are controversial and under discussion: here, here, here, here. You know that these kind of links are under discussion here: User_talk:Geo_Swan links are under discussion as you know. I must say i found it very disruptive that you do not discuss the topic in this discussion and instead adds more of these links instead - that's disruptive.


 * Also i must say that i find Talk:Asim_Thahit_Abdullah_Al_Khalaqi to this talk page not helpful.


 * I just wanted to let you know that. IQinn (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Qassim al Rimi.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Qassim al Rimi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 01:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Multiple names for this individual... Geo Swan (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ali_Abd_al-Rahman_al-Faqasi_al-Ghamdi.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ali_Abd_al-Rahman_al-Faqasi_al-Ghamdi.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. Melesse (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Tablighi Jamaat
I found out that you made good amount of contribs to Tablighi Jamaat. I've been working on this article since some time. I just wanted to make a friendly request for article assessment. I will appreciate if you can comment on the quality of current article and any possible areas of improvement. Few lines here, may be. Hamza [ talk ] 17:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

NYT may go to subscriber-only
Just a heads-up that the New York Times may soon require a subscription again.

I assume/hope that the old links will at least continue to show the article's title, as it used to, but I thought you might want to keep your eyes open for NYT URLs that may need to be expanded.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Could you please stop the relinking like here? I am going to suggest to merge the article Guantanamo hunger strikes that you have written and that is not established yet into Hunger strike. IQinn (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? And why are you making this suggestion?  Geo Swan (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Hunger strike article has already a Guantanamo section. Why do we need another article that will be most likely POV as there are not enough editors to work on?


 * For the re-linking you may have noticed by now that i have only reverted instances in articles where a link to hunger strike is the better choice in the context of the given information. I had a look at each instance and i did not revert when a link to the new page that you have created is the better choice. A clear edit summary was given.


 * Please assume WP:GOODFAITH and leave enough time for replies. IQinn (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Guantanamo hunger strikes
Sorry if I've just stomped on you foot. I looked around for this article just last week, probably right before you created it, and only briefly again this morning -- probably the accent mark kept me from finding it, and it wasn't linked to from hunger strike AFAICT which had a lot of poorly sourced info on this already. I leave the resulting mess in your capable hands though! -- Kendrick7talk 11:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Guantanamo spelling makes more sense and seems to be the trend around here. I had originally just C&P'd from an offsite ref and was sticking with their spelling. -- Kendrick7talk 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James Hayes (US soldier)


The article James Hayes (US soldier) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * BLP1E. Fundamentally negative, not 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. henrik • talk  15:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dustin Berg


The article Dustin Berg has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable. Interesting story, but no real significance.

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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He admitted to killing another living soul. Seems notable enough to me! -- Kendrick7talk 06:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Spencer Gaines


The article Spencer Gaines has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Ok, a soldier who beat a drug test. There are a lot of people, even not in the military, that beat drug tests on a daily basis. Merge this information with articles about drug testing, since that is more about what this article is about.

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. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kevin D Myricks


The article Kevin D Myricks has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * BLP1E. Fundamentally negative, not 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. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Kevin D Myricks
I have nominated Kevin D Myricks, 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/Kevin D Myricks. 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. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Geo Swan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Andrew Purvis -
 * 2) Louise Christian -
 * 3) George Wolfe (CPA) -

Abdul Majid Khan deleted content
The content at the time of deletion was:

Abdul Majeed Khan was born in Toru, Mardan District in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1940. Abdul Majeed Khan was an advocate by profession and was a famous name in Mardan District bar. He was also a famous name in the nationalist party which is now called AWAMI NATIONAL PARTY and he was the president of ANP of Mardan District. But later he left party because of unnecessary interferences of Azam Khan Hoti who was the brother in law of party,s leader Abdul Wali Khan but all the time Abdul majeed khan was respected by all other nationalist and other political leaders this why he was welcome by an old nationalist leader Afzal Khan lala to his party named pukhtunkhwa qami party. Abdul Majeed Khan had also great respect in his village Toru,his villagers called him a statue of a real Pukhtun. Abdul Majeed Khan died in Toru in 2003 and buried in his village Toru. May his soul rest in peace

TexasAndroid (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Dustin Berg
I have nominated Dustin Berg, 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/Dustin Berg. 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 10:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fadi Ahmad
A tag has been placed on Fadi Ahmad 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. Paul_012 (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)