User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2010-July

__NOINDEX__

Personal attacks
I request you withdraw your allegations against me. Serious accusations require serious evidence. These allegations are false and i request you either shows off your "strong ground" or better to withdraw your allegations because they are simply false. IQinn (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been days now since you made serious allegations against me without providing evidence. Personal attacks are not tolerated in the our community WP:NPA and editors do get blocked for personal attacks. Be warned about that. I repeat my request. Withdraw your allegations. IQinn (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not withdrawing my comment. I continue to believe that the history of the contributions from the wiki-id User:Iqinn shows strong grounds to believe multiple individuals have used the wiki-id...


 * WRT to this link -- once again you used assertions that other contributors were attacking you, or violating policy, to evade discussing your own clear and obvious lapse from WP:User pages.


 * WRT evidence... I am working on it.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to start another ANI about your user pages and good luck with it, as you are so wrong. The discussion had been disrupted by your personal attack against me. Evidence? Yes it would be nice if you could stop your personal attacks and provide evidence. We all wait for it. That has been a long time already now where you keep claiming you have "evidence" but fails to deliver. I do not think that the community is willing to wait much longer. IQinn (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been a week now since you came up with these bogus accusations against me. Show off you "evidence" or withdraw your allegation. Be warned again editors do get blocked for personal attacks. IQinn (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Longer response here, Geo Swan (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OMG, children. Less fighting, more adding encyclopedic content! -- Kendrick7talk 09:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed v. George W. Bush


The article Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed v. George W. Bush has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as thee 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. IQinn (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible solution for afghan training camp articles
I'm looking at the various AfD's related to Afghan training camps, and trying to decide what should be done. I think the best course of action is for you to merge the material on the individual camps into Afghan training camp. Recognizing that this may take some time, an alternative would be to userfy the page, with the condition that it be no-indexed, to give you time to do the merge. Does this make sense to you? -- SPhilbrick  T  13:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I am sorry that the nominator chose not to include in his various afd that I already proposed merging the less notable articles, and asked for collegial feedback at WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?.  I can't suggest a good faith explanation as to why he would withhold that I already offered a good faith proposal for merging the less notable articles.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that you offered a proposal to merge, but that misses the point. You are the best person to be doing the merge, so why not just do it? I can support saving this material in your user space if you are willing to do the merge. If not, it should be deleted. So far, it sounds like you expect someone else to merge. If you respond that you are planning to do the merge, I'll be willing to support a userfy plan, if not, I'll support deletion. I'm trying to help you, but you need to respond to the question.--  SPhilbrick  T  12:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am prepared to do the work of the merge, by myself. Alternately, I am willing to do some of the work, shared with others, if others want to participate.  I have challengers -- challengers who assert that I act without getting the support of the wider wikipedia community.  They assert that I have been inserting "misleading propaganda".  I don't want to wait for them to make these vile accusations again.  This is why I made the proposal, to show merging the less well documented camps had support from other people before I began.  And I thought it was possible other people might make suggestions about the merge that it would make sense to take into account before the merge began.


 * FWIW deletion is supposed to be a last resort, to be used when discussion fails. Unfortunately, there is are some within the regular afd patrollers who routinely skip trying discussion, and leap immediately to deletions for nomination -- even for concerns, like NPOV, which are not grounds for deletion, which are only grounds for deletion when discussion has been tried, and failed.


 * Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

`

Articles for deletion nomination of Al Qaida artillery and preps camp
I have nominated Al Qaida artillery and preps camp, 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/Al Qaida artillery and preps camp. 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. Claritas § 21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WRT multiple individuals using a single wiki-id
Reply to your post on my talk page. No need for another filibustering "central discussion" That starts of with incivility as name calling and personal attacks. Withdraw your bogus allegations. A "central discussion" is inappropriate here as you can read here Centralized discussion. Please stop demanding inappropriate things and please stop personal attacks. IQinn (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to your post on my talk page. I can not say more that i have told you already the last time. Unfortunately you did not have the courtesy so far to answer my post here like you as you have ignored a lot of posts in the past and you continue your personal attack against me as you do not withdraw your bogus accusations. IQinn (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not withdrawing my concern that your posting history offers strong grounds to consider that you have allowed other contributors to post from your wiki-id. Your comments do show wide variations that I honestly believe are strong grounds to consider the possibility multiple individuals drafted comments submitted by your wiki-id.
 * Your comments show wide variations in coherency. Some of your comments are incoherent; they use sentence fragments; incoherent grammar; have missing words; have extra contradictory words; and make wide use of out of place homonyms.  The meaning of these comments are completely unclear.  However, some other comments are completely clear, and these I suspect were drafted by someone else.
 * Your most coherent comments are not only more coherent, but they differ stylistically in telling ways from your usual comments. Your usual style is to react with angry denunciations to any challenge, no matter how tactfully that challenge is phrased.  But your more coherent comments follow a sophisticated strategy of holding back from open anger, and make sophisticated use of sly innuendo.
 * Your comments show wide variations in the positions you have taken. For instance, your initial criticism of the material I drafted was that my contributions had "never been properly checked".  But when you defended your unilateral collapsing on one hundred or so instances of navigation templates you didn't like you claimed that your changes should remain because "they have been checked by thousands".  Changes you made had  to be preserved because no one had challenged them in the month or so since you made them -- but material I contributed "had never been properly checked", even when they were made four or five years earlier?  These positions are wildly inconsistent, and I can't imagine how they could be made by one single good faith contributor.  I am on record that my contributions, Jimbo Wales's contributions, any other wikipedians' contributions are subject to good faith review, no matter how long they have existed or how many times they have been read.
 * Your comments show wide variations in ability to use the basic tools of the wikipedia.
 * In particular, at least one of contributors who has used your wiki-id doesn't know how to use diffs. There have been dozens of discussions where you falsely claimed you had already answered my questions, and addressed my concerns.  If this had been true it should have been trivial for you to supply diffs.  You didn't do so.  On dozens of occasions where diffs were essential you instead enclosed the full URLs to ordinary wikilinks in single pairs of brackets.  To any third party who gave the discussion a surface examination it would have looked like you had supplied the diffs I asked for.  But you hadn't.  Then, on a talk page a few months ago, you cut and paste my version and cut and paste your version, of a particular passage.  It was an instance where a diff should have been used.  I realized that the individual using your wiki-id who wouldn't reply to my very reasonable requests for diffs didn't know how to use diffs.  Now some of your comments have always used diffs.  What other explanation is there, than that multiple individuals use your wiki-id?
 * How many contributors who use robot assisted editing tools, like AWB and Twinkle, don't know how to use diffs? How many contributors who claim they are programmers on their day jobs don't know how to use diffs?
 * Your comments show wide variations in your understanding of wikipolicy. The more sophisticated comments you post, the ones where your usual naked anger and hostility is missing, replaced by sophisticated sly comments, also show a sophisticated understanding of wikipolicy.  But your usual comments continue to show alarming misunderstandings of the most core principles of wikipolicy.  What other explanation is there, than that multiple individuals use your wiki-id?
 * Your comments show frequent claims that I have not explained to you issues -- when, in fact, I had spent hours crafting civil, collegial, good faith explanations of those exact issues, that I had left on your talk page. You have a policy of removing good faith comments from your talk page.  I think the most likely explanation as to how you could claim these issues were never explained to you is that multiple individuals use your wiki-id, and that they don't keep track of the comments made by, or addressed to, your alter-egos.
 * So, no, I am not going to apologize for, or withdraw, my comment that there are strong grounds to suspect multiple individuals have contributed using your wiki-id.
 * Now there have been occasions when you felt frustrated, and appealed to someone with a greater command of English, to tune up your English? If a friend who was more fluent than you were, took your first draft, and rewrote it, into grammatically correct, coherent English, I believe this would not violate wikipolicy.  If your more fluent friend added new ideas to your comment this would violate the principle that each wiki-id is supposed to be the work of  a single individual.
 * If you appealed, by email, to other wikipedians who have had conflicts with me, and asked for their help in responding to me -- or if other wikipedians who have had conflicts with me sought you ought and volunteered their help -- and you ended up sharing your password with them, so they could draft replies under your name, that would be violation of policy, and would make you a sockpuppet.  If, on the other hand they drafted replies, emailed them to you, and you actually placed the comment, or afd nomination on the wikipedia, that would make you a meat-puppet.
 * The comments above are only scratching the surface of the reasons I stated I think there are strong grounds to consider that you have allowed multiple individuals to contribute using your wiki-id, so, no, I am not going to apologize for, or withdraw, my comment.
 * I noticed that you told User:Quigley and User:Children of the dragon you were going to request an SPI on the two of them, because they posted similar comments within one hour, and had worked on some of the same articles in the past. This would be weak grounds for an SPI.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Margun training camp
I have nominated Margun training camp, 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/Margun training camp. 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. Claritas § 18:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Moroccan training camp
I have nominated Moroccan training camp, 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/Moroccan training camp. 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. Claritas § 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Al Fand

 * See Deletion review. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply
To your post on my talk page. I added unlawfully detained where it is supported by reliable source. Cheers IQinn (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh.. by the way. It get's time for you to withdraw your false allegations. against me. Personal attacks are not welcome in our community and just to remind you again: Editors do get blocked for personal attacks on Wikipedia. (Just to make sure that you do not claim later nobody told you. I think you will find the policy for incivility and personal attacks yourself as you are a long term user.) It is never to late to apologize but time is almost running out. IQinn (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is another instance where I see inappropriate hostility from you where it seems your imperfect understanding of English has failed you once again. Absolutely no-one objects to you adding "improperly detained", when backed by RS, and when phrased in a non-biased way.  What we objected to, and continue to object to, was your unexplained replacement of extrajudicial detention with improperly detained.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

your recent post
There is nothing wrong in using bare url's as a start when adding ref. Not at all. IQinn (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a reply to this good faith reminder.


 * I believe User:Iqinn is incorrect here. The best time to populate all the fields of a reference is when it is first added.  Readers benefit from it being fleshed out, at the time it is first used.  Other contributors, who might use it in another article, benefit from it being fleshed out, at the time it is first used.  If the contributor who adds it doesn't populate the reference when they first use it they might well forget to ever flesh it out.  And, when the URL has gone 404 it is definitely too late to flesh it out.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No. User:Geo Swan is absolutely wrong. To include new ref as bare url's as a start is perfectly fine. Has always been perfectly fine and will be always be perfectly fine on Wikipedia as i can see. We are a community where people work together and things grow and we have to start somewhere. When i have more time or another editor has more time that somebody will further improve on it. You are so absolutely wrong on this and with a lot of similar posts that i can only refer you to this two policies where i think people will find the answers to this obscure warning post on my talk page WP:Ownership WP:DISRUPT. IQinn (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said above, you have made something like 15,000 edits. You are no longer a newbie, and haven't been a newbie, for a long time.  Yes, the wikipedia is a community.  It is a community with standards, where we have expectations on one another to measure up to those standards.  You should, by now, be aware of the recommendations in various wikidocuments as to what constitutes a citation that complies with today's expectations.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What standard are you speaking about? As said "naked urls" are fine for any editor to use. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It is a very good way to start things off. Thousand times better than doing nothing. IQinn (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply and query
Might be helpful for closing admins, if, in addition to whatever other comments and/or rationale you wish to make at AFDs, that if you also intend on seeking later subsequent userfication, you bold a "Userfy" with a note about that, at the AFD page, while the AFD is still ongoing and before it closes. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Geo Swan/Iqinn grounds/caveat
Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. IQinn (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The wiki-id User:Iqinn placed three G10 tags on this sub-page. On User talk:Iqinn they offered a mistlieading timeline of this sub-page.  A condensed timeline follows can be found in this diff.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I made my comment much earlier what the time stamp of my comment shows. My timeline was not misleading at all. That is simply false. As your bogus accusation on this obscure attack page are simply false. Stop making personal attacks. IQinn (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll clarify what I found misleading aout the note -- it implied I placed the hangon right away. In fact I didn't do so until after the 2nd G10.  It also left out all mention of multiple counter-policy G10s.


 * Oh, yeah, I dispute that the pages I am creating are "attack pages" -- so long as they are compiles with an eye towards requesting comments in an appropiate fora, and are used in a timely manner, and then deleted, they are not "attack pages". Finally, when I get to point of adding specific notes to specific diffs, I will do my best to do so fairly.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank's for removing the misleading timeline. And i am looking forward to your proposed conflict resolution. Keep me updated. IQinn (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to your post on my talk page. As said i am looking forward to your proposed conflict resolution. Keep me updated IQinn (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply
To your message on my talk page. userspace draft This is the standard template that we add to user space articles to make reader aware that: This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work in progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. It can be added to user pages by any editor. There is no WP:Ownership here on Wikipedia. It is important to make clear that these pages may be incomplete and/or unreliable specially in controversial topic areas like Guantanamo. IQinn (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the answers i gave you here are perfectly fine. I do not think that there is much room for WP:wikilawyering. There is no WP:ownership and anybody is welcome to add these templates. I hope that makes it clear now. Cheers! IQinn (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I believe that WP:User pages strongly recommends that when one thinks one has a valid reason to edit subpages in the user space associated with another contributor, one should leave a heads-up for the other contributor.


 * I have addressed your assertions of wikilawyering and ownership many times in the past. You really should not state or imply other contributors are acting in bad faith, simply because they do not agree with you.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, by citing these policies i did not imply that you are acting in bad faith. Sorry when you misread that. IQinn (talk)


 * WP:Wikilawyer is not a wikipolicy. Wikilawyer is not a guideline.  Wikilawyer is an essay.  And the very first line of it says: "Wikilawyering ... is a pejorative term' which describes various questionable ways of judging other Wikipedians' actions."


 * For "questionable ways" the author of this essay could have put "acts of bad faith".


 * I think you may have cited this essay over a hundred times. Every instance where you cited this essay, you might as well have said, "you are acting in bad faith!".


 * I have an essay, "on apologies". Obviously, I can't make you read it.  If you were only going to read one section you should read Tricks to avoid the necessity of an apology.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No citing these policies does not imply that you are acting in bad faith. I said this already and i make it very clear. I do not believe you are acting in bad faith. Over a hundred time WP:ownership...hmm you may think over if you have a continues problem with "ownership" if other user need to point you to this policy so often please accepted that other editor will change your contributes in all kind of ways. This is what we do Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't pretend that you haven't baselessly stated or implied that all my contributions and comments were in bad faith on countless occasions. Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree with you let's say when i would edit the text of the pages in your user space. But simply adding a template or a tag is perfectly fine. And we had this already. There is no WP:Ownership on Wikipedia please do not submit anything to Wikipedia if you have a problem with this policy. IQinn (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In your actions you have clearly ignored the advice in WP:User pages. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist
Hello GeoSwan. I just wanted to let you know that after your message I have merged my watchlists and this seems to be working well with about 33000 pages. I am therefore only using the one log-in, User:Boleyn, which will make things easier. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WRT misunderstandings traceable to your imperfect command of English
To your recent message. No the report is based on all 516 memos. That includes the one we are speaking about. IQinn (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to your second message. No that is wrong. And i do not understand why you not just read the report instead of original research. The reports leaves no doubt that the memos we are speaking about were included in their research.IQinn (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but these comments are additional evidence of how your imperfect command of English causes problems. Among the things  the report leaves no doubt about is that it is based on the same 516 CSRT memos published in the winter and spring of 2005 that had been analyzed by the legal scholars at Seton Hall University.  It is crystal clear they did not analyst 54 additional CSRT memos that weren't published until 2007, or the 1100 ARB memos from the 2005, 2006 or 2007 annual review board hearings.
 * As I have said before, there are lots of useful contributions that someone can make to the English wikipedia, even if they have an imperfect command of English. All I would expect is that those with an imperfect command of English limit their contributions to what they can do competently, within their command of English, and what they can competently explain, if other contributors have questions or concerns.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of LIFG training camp
I have nominated LIFG training camp, 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/LIFG training camp. 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. Please note that this is a multi-article omnibus nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I proposed deletion for these tow articles.


 * Ullah v. Bush
 * Qatta v. Bush

They have the same problem as the long list of habeas corpus article that you have created in mass and that had been proposed for deletion in April.

I suggest you userfy these two articles as well. Otherwise i would suggest deletion. Cheers! IQinn (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Serena Armstrong-Jones, Viscountess Linley
Hello. In February you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this). I'm removing a lot of similar references; many other editors have also been deceived by these sources. A similar operation is Alphascript Publishing. Fences &amp;  Windows  21:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. Geo Swan (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Civil Action No. 08-cv-1233
A tag has been placed on Civil Action No. 08-cv-1233, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Civil Action No. 05-cv-1311
A tag has been placed on Civil Action No. 05-cv-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Case No. 05-cv-1311
A tag has been placed on Case No. 05-cv-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 05-cv-1311
A tag has been placed on 05-cv-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Civil Action 05-CV-1311
A tag has been placed on Civil Action 05-CV-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of No. 05-CV-1311
A tag has been placed on No. 05-CV-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Civil Action 05-1311
A tag has been placed on Civil Action 05-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of No. 05-1311
A tag has been placed on No. 05-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 05-CV-1311
A tag has been placed on 05-CV-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of No. 05-cv-1311
A tag has been placed on No. 05-cv-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Case No. 05-CV-1311
A tag has been placed on Case No. 05-CV-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Case No. 05-1311
A tag has been placed on Case No. 05-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Civil Action 05-cv-1311
A tag has been placed on Civil Action 05-cv-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Civil Action No. 05-1311
A tag has been placed on Civil Action No. 05-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Civil Action No. 05-CV-1311
A tag has been placed on Civil Action No. 05-CV-1311, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Case No. 05-CV-1311 (RCL)
A tag has been placed on Case No. 05-CV-1311 (RCL), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"departure date"? Or "transfer status"?
I disagree. We should make this absolutely clear who is still in Guantanamo and who not. That's what people are looking for. IQinn (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The request I made, which User:Iqinn declines above, was to have a column with the captives' departure date, rather than a column, with the captives' status.


 * Because someone commenting from the wiki-id Iqinn volunteered that English was not their native language I can't know whether they actually understand my requests. Their nominal justification for declining this request does not make any sense to me.  It seems obvious to me that since we now know the departure date of all the captives, anyone who does not have a departure date listed is still held in the camp.


 * Consistency is important, and I already changed quite a few of the articles on guantanamo captives by nationality to follow the format I suggested. Geo Swan (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully understand your request and i reject it. It is absolutely necessary to show who is in Guantanamo and who not. No reason not to show this clearly.


 * Consistency? You have no Ownership over these articles and that you have started them does not mean we can not change it. Quite a few articles already follow the format that i have suggested. IQinn (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please understand that all wikipedia contributors have an obligation to try to offer civil, collegial explanations when good faith contributors voice civil, specific questions and concerns.


 * Early in your career you kept making cracks that my contributions had "not been properly reviewed by the community." Please understand that there was no conspiracy to hide my contributions from review.  Please understand that your contributions are just as subject to collegial questions and concerns as anyone else's.  Please understand that you have no ownership rights.  You can't simply refuse to answer questions.  You can't try to apply a double standard, where my contributions are open to review, even years later, but your edits are not open to review, just because you made similar edits, and they weren't questioned at the time you made them.


 * I remain concerned that you dismissed the approach I suggested without really understanding it. If the column is entitled "departure date", and that column is blank for a particular entry, I believe it is perfectly clear that would mean they are still held in Guantanamo.


 * You have asserted, on a number of occasions in recent months, that you are committed to collegial cooperation. Well, if that was true, why didn't you try to discuss the proper approach back when you first worked on a status/departure date column.  No, my preferred approach doesn't automatically stand, just because I made my changes first.  And your preferred approach shouldn't automatically stand, if you turn out to have more time and energy, and change more of these articles than I do, so the majority use your preferred approach.  We are supposed to have a discussion.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop your WP:ownership behavior. I am extremely concerned about your unwillingness to civil conversation and frequent personal attacks. This is also not an either or question. There is no reason not to make absolutely clear who is still in Guantanamo other than someone wanted to confuse our readers about this important fact. There is absolutely nothing wrong to have a column that shows our reader on the first sight who is still in Guantanamo. This is one of the most important information and we should not hide this, we should highlight it. 00:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I accept, I have always accepted, that my contributions are subject to good faith, collegial review. In spite of numerous appearances to the contrary, like your routine use of unsubstantiated claims that those who disagree with you are showing bad faith, and your unsubstantiated claims that those who disagree with are violating wikipolicy, I have made prodigious and admirable efforts to view your challenges to my contributions as good faith attempts to improve the wikipedia.


 * I have said this above, but clearly I have to repeat it, the contributions of every wikipedian, even Jimbo Wales, are subject to good faith, collegial, review -- and this means that you too must accept good faith collegial review of your contributions.


 * You cannot act like your contributions are above review. You cannot react to every concern I raise about your contributions by stating you will ignore it on the basis that I am showing WP:Ownership.  You do not seem to understand that your unwillingness to respond to good faith concerns about your edits is the only sign of WP:Ownership around these edits.


 * No one is going to regard this request as a personal attack.


 * Let's be clear, you are entitled to think my initial use of departure date column is less useful than a status column. But the next step is not for you to
 * avoid raising your opinion with me;
 * race me, and try to place status columns on as many of the 40-odd articles that list captives by their nationality as you can.


 * This is a good example of an editorial disagreement where those interested in the Guantanamo articles should have had a central discussion of a clear cut editorial issue shared by 40-odd articles. I honestly believed that you seriously lapsed from a large number of wikipolicies and established conventions by not initially:
 * telling me that you thought my use of a departure date column was inferior to the use of a status column;
 * requesting that I stop adding a departure date column, and participate in a central discussion;
 * you would have been fully entitled to ask for the opinions of uninvolved third parties.


 * I am confident that the record of our interaction shows I have gone far and above the call of duty in my efforts to puzzle out what you meant in cryptic comments. I am confident that the record of our interaction shows I have gone far and above the call of duty in my efforts to be patient with you.  I am confident that the record of our interaction shows I have gone far and above the call of duty in my efforts assume good faith on your part even in the face of your routine baseless attacks on my moral character, my judgment and my motives -- first when you were clearly a newbie, second when I realized that English was not your first language.


 * In this comment you wrote : "We should make this absolutely clear who is still in Guantanamo and who not. That's what people are looking for. I have already expressed the opinion that I think that when an entry in a column labelled "departure date" is empty it is clear that captive is still in Guantanamo.  But how do you know That's what people are looking for.  I suggest neither you or I knows what our readers are looking for?  I suggest you are correct, some readers may only care who is still held there, but that for others the date of departure is significant.  A column, with this info in it can be sorted, as these all are, or should be, tables with the "sortable" property.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop fillibustering and stop attacking people.
 * You attacked me by claiming my account would be used by multiple users. Other administrators confirmed that this is false and ask you to provide evidence for your claims. You failed to provide evidence for your bogus false allegations. Personal attacks are not welcome in out community.
 * Just today you put out another message where you accuse me of bad faith based on your false information. This all just add to your long list of uncivil disruptive behavior. Stop your disruptive behavior give up WP:ownership and dare you stop attacking other editors. You have been warned a lot. 23:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)