User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2010-June

__NOINDEX__

Nomination for deletion of Template:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption
Template:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You expressed an interest in keeping the discussion, so I moved it here, along with the template here. I also noticed that there was another prior discussion which had been deleted, which I restored and moved here.  I also updated the links in the new discussion to point to the old one.  If you know of a better home for these threads, let me know, and I can move them there.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  15:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Union of Mujahadin
I have nominated Union of Mujahadin, 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/Union of Mujahadin. 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. IQinn (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Tank Nafaz Shariati Muhammed Molakand Organization
I have nominated Tank Nafaz Shariati Muhammed Molakand Organization, 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/Tank Nafaz Shariati Muhammed Molakand Organization. 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. IQinn (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Abdul Haq (al Qaida leader)
I have nominated Abdul Haq (al Qaida leader), 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/Abdul Haq (al Qaida leader). 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. IQinn (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Malem Jan Sobari
I have nominated Malem Jan Sobari, 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/Malem Jan Sobari. 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. IQinn (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Al Fand training camp
I have nominated Al Fand 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/Al Fand 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. IQinn (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Camp Nine (Afghanistan training camp)
I have nominated Camp Nine (Afghanistan 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/Camp Nine (Afghanistan 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. IQinn (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Al Aqua military training camp
I have nominated Al Aqua military 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/Al Aqua military 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. IQinn (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Sheikh Sanif terrorist camp
I have nominated Sheikh Sanif terrorist 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/Sheikh Sanif terrorist 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. IQinn (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

talkback

 * discussion here. Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WRT your assertions that you "are not a fan of wikilawyering"
I can't count how many times you have responded to something I wrote by asserting that you "are not a fan of wikilawyering".

I invite you to look at your own contribution history. I invite you reflect on how many of your edit summaries cite documents from the wikipedia names-space. Your talk space comments show the same pattern.

I offer you a suggestion purely in the interests of preserving your own credibility. I suggest you purge the phrase "I am not a fan of wikilawyering" from your vocabulary.

First, it is an instance of the provocative and inflammatory language I have requested you avoid in the past. It gives the unfortunate appearance that you are not fulfilling your obligation to assume good faith.

Second, I think you will find it will erode your credibility with other readers to repeatedly claim that other good faith contributors are "wikilawyering", when all they are doing is making a collegial attempt to reach a consensus consistent with the project's policies. I think you may find that when you have also cited wikidocuments, or you are the first correspondent to cite wikidocuments, and only assert a distaste for wikidocuments late in the discussion, you might leave the impression with some readers that you resort to the claim that you "are not a fan of wikilawyering" when you can't admit your correspondent has offered good points, for which you can't offer civil, collegial, meaningful, policy-based responses.

I do my best to assume that all of the instances when you cite wikidocuments those represent your best efforts to collegially reach a consensus consistent with the project's policies. I request the same courtesy from you. And I recommend you extend this courtesy to all your correspondents. Geo Swan (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me say it again. I am not a fan of wikilawyering. And i will repeat this again in the future when i think it is appropiate. I am always willing to discuss specific questions and content issues but i am sorry there is not much to respond to your message here than that it is full of false facts and uncivility. I request you have the cortesy to respect other users and stay away from any uncivil behavior. 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your record shows many instances when you have avoided responsibility for your actions, and have given obfuscatory answers, or no answers, to serious questions. For instance, you have justfied hundreds of excisions with the claim that the material relied on a "questionable source".


 * I am going to repeat what I wrote before, my personal doubts about the credibility of what an WP:RS asserts, your personal doubts about the credibility of what an WP:RS asserts, should play no role in who we cover what that WP:RS says. Any tailoring of article space, to conform to our personal opinions is a violation of the policy on writing from a neutral point of view.


 * My pointing this out to you is not "filibustering". It is not "wikilawyering".  My attempts to engage you in civil, collegial dialogue are not personal attacks.  This remains a very serious issue.  You used this justification for excision in hundreds of articles


 * The "questionable sources" claim is merely one issue where you used personal attacks to evade your responsibilities for your edits. Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No your bogus accusations are false. IQinn (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your contribution history is available for anyone to read. Geo Swan (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with that but sorry, your contribution history is also available for anyone to read. IQinn (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your record shows unprovoked, unsubstantiated personal attack, like those in this comment. Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely wrong and the diff you provide is not an personal attack. IQinn (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your denials are simply not credible, and reinforce my concern that you are trying to contribute to the wikipedia at a level beyond your ability to communicate clearly and civilly, in English. In this comment you wrote:
 * If you honestly can't recognize this as a personal attack then you should re-evaluate your claim you are fluent in English. Geo Swan (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

WRT "propaganda"
I can't count how many times you have stated or implied that my contributions constitute "propaganda". Assertions that good faith contributors have contributed "propaganda" is another instance of the provocative and inflammatory language I have requested you avoid.

Assertions that other contributors have contributed "propaganda" implies bad faith on their part. Good faith contributors can unknowingly contribute biased material. They can do so because they were unaware of their own bias, or because they were tired, or an early draft makes it into the article, not the final version, the good faith contributor figured wasn't biased, or for various other reasons that should not strip them of the being considered good faith contributors.

This is, I suggest a very strong reason for not stating or implying other contributors are contributing "propaganda". Stating or implying that other's contributions constitute propaganda has the unfortunate result of eroding the general level of trust and civility on the project as a whole. Even if, for the sake of argument, some uninvolved third parties might agree that some material could be described as "propaganda", it is damaging to make statements that imply bad faith on the part of others who may have made good-faith mistakes. When you imply bad faith, over what was an innocent mistake, you impose an additional and unnecessary burden for your correspondents' ability to continue to assume good faith on your part.

Another very strong reason for not stating or implying that other contributor's contributions are "propaganda" is that we are all fallible. Like the rest of us you are fallible. And no matter how sure you are, personally, that another contributor's contributions could be described as "propaganda", it is very damaging to the project as a whole to state or imply bad faith, if your interpretation of our policies is incorrect. This imposes a huge unnecessary burden on your correspondents to continue to assume good faith on your part.

So, once again, I ask you to consider using more temperate, less inflammatory and provocative language in your comments.

As an alternative, if your real concern is over what you perceive as a bias in some contribution, but you don't actually suspect bad faith, why don't you state your concern by being specific about how contributions show bias?

The propaganda article currently lists 48 propaganda techniques. I suggest that if you look at a passage that (privately) triggers a propaganda concern for you, but you can't identify that passage as using one or more of those 48 techniques, then you should reconsider your concern?

So, I suggest you consider instead of stating or implying that material is "propaganda", you ask questions as to whether the specific passages that concern you may lapse from WP:NPOV, stating which passage concerns you and specifically stating how you think it may lapse from WP:NPOV.

Let me be frank, you have, several times, stated that passages concerned you because they could "leave readers with the wrong impression". If material is written from a neutral point of view, and properly and fairly cites its WP:RS, then there is no "wrong impression". We have to respect the intelligence of our readers. When readers read our neutrally written and properly referenced articles, and come to an informed conclusion, but we know or suspect that their conclusion differs from our own personal conclusion -- this is not a lapse from policy. On the contrary, if we try to tailor our contributions to actually shape our readers' conclusions, we are lapsing from WP:NPOV and WP:NOT -- because the wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy of particular conclusions. Geo Swan (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you propose censorship? I am welcome to discuss specific questions and content issues but i am sorry there is nothing more to reply to this message full of false facts and uncivility. There is no censorship on Wikipedia. What's the point of your message? IQinn (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please only leave me serious answers. I believe you know that it is you yourself who has acted to censor the wikipedia of material that might leave readers with "the wrong impression".  There is no "wrong impression".  To act as if there was a "right" impression and a "wrong" impression would be a very serous violation of all the wikipedia's core policies.


 * You have accused me of "spreading misleading propaganda" based solely on your personal doubts about the credibility of our WP:RS. The neutral point of view requires us to make clear which WP:RS made an assertion.  If we were covering the topic of slavery, it would be appropriate for us to Cotton Mather, or some other religious leader who asserted God endorsed human bondage.  We should do so in a way that made clear to our readers that the wikipedia wasn't endorsing his opinion.  Covering Cotton Mather's opinions, from a neutrla point of view, is not spreading propaganda.  It would be responsible editing.


 * You should never have made vague and insulting assertions that I was using the wikipedia to "spread misleading propaganda". If there was some specific instance, or specific instances, where you thought my coverage of the opinions in an WP:RS did not comply with WP:NPOV, you should have said so.  You should have said so both collegially and specifically.  Instead you have made dozens of vague personal attacks that I was "spreading misleading propaganda".  Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No i did not make dozens of vague personal attacks. That is wrong. IQinn (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And as i said there is no censorship here and i will continue to raise my voice in the future. IQinn (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No one will object to you raising your voice, provided that while doing so, you are doing your best to cooperate with other good faith contributors.


 * If you really don't believe in censorship, then it seems to me you will stop making vague and unsubstantiated assertions that other contributors are "spreading misleading propaganda". If contributors have specific concerns, it is important that they are specific when you express that concern.  And it is really important that those contributors express their concerns tactfully, for several reasons.  I am not infallible, which is why I really listen to my good faith correpsondents.  You are fallible too.  Every wikipedia contributor needs to accept they are fallible.  You need to accept you are fallible.


 * Your record shows you jump to accusations of policy violations very quickly. Your record shows your sudden jump to accusations of policy violations routinely imply that the other contributor was motivated by bad faith -- leaving no room that they might have made an honest mistake.  And your record shows your sudden jumps to accusations of policy violations are often based on misinterpretations of our policies.


 * Good faith contributors listen to correspondents who express their concerns tactfully. Tactfully expressed concerns don't unnecessarily drain their reservoir of good faith.  No one needs to be embarrassed when they raise a concern tactully, because thei concern never became a power struggle.  They don't have to "back down".  Your commenting style is not a tactful one.  It is not just yourinteractions with me.  You are not tactful with all kinds of other contributors too.  As I mentioned recently, in your interaction with Epeefleche on Talk:Aafia Siddiqui you very quickly escalated to accusing him of bad faith.  I asked about your collapsing of navigation templates at Wikipedia_talk:Navigation_templates  Your interpretation was not endorsed by anyone.  Yet you seemed to be stating that you did not accept the consensus from that discussion.  You levelled many accusations at Epeefleche, and myself.  Sorry, but I think any uninvolved third party will see that your accusations were baseless.  I think any uninvolved third party would see that absolutely no one endorsed your position.


 * None of this needed to have been so embarrassing for you that you wouldn't or couldn't accept the clear consensus that your collapsing of those templates was counterpolicy. If you hadn't followed your usual style, and made the issue an ego-based power-struggle, then all you would have had to say was something like, "Oh, so those are the conditions where templates should be collapsed?  Sorry everybody, I meant well.  I'll go back and fix those that don't comply with that consensus."


 * Contrast your approach to my initial question. I knew I didn't know the established convention, if any.  I strongly suspected you were mistaken.  But I acknowledged I didn't know the conventions.  I phrased my question in a manner where if I was surprised, and those who focussed on navigation templates informed me that your collapsing was authorized, I wouldn't need to be embarrassed.  I wasn't making it an ego-struggle.  You make everything an ego-struggle.


 * In this edit you wrote:
 * You stated "many" of my contributions are "pure propaganda". You implied that I was not a good faith volunteer, but rather "from a small group of paid people who's interest is not to write an encyclopedia but to spread propaganda.".  This is one of your many gross violations of our civility policies.   Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You stated "many" of my contributions are "pure propaganda". You implied that I was not a good faith volunteer, but rather "from a small group of paid people who's interest is not to write an encyclopedia but to spread propaganda.".  This is one of your many gross violations of our civility policies.   Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/review/Tahir Mahmood Ashrafi
heya :). Just checking whether you still need this file, since it has remained untouched since mid-April. Cheers! -- Luk  talk 15:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

good faith concerns
About a year ago a new contributor started to make a lot of edits to my contributions. They started then to voice vague concerns over my contributions, in what seemed to me to be tones of dire alarm. They did so without being specific as to what their concerns were, making it impossible to try to address those concerns.

The two main initial concerns were over the magnitude of my share of contributions to the wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Guantanamo; and that my contributions had never been properly checked.

Over the last ten months or so that relatively new contributor accelerated the volume of their contributions -- approximately ninety percent of their edits have been to material I orginally contributed. Honestly, I have been very frustrated by several aspects of this contributors pattern of edits. I have been frustrated as they have a pattern of simply ignoring my good faith concerns with their efforts. I have been frustrated by their repeated pattern of leaving personal comments about my character or my judgment in their responses to my concerns on articles' talk page discussions, when articles' talk pages are supposed to be for the discussion of editorial issues. It is an effort not to respond in kind to those comments. About two months ago I decided that when this contributor left personal comments about my character or judgment on several articles' talk pages I would leave a single response on their personal talk page, do my best to keep that single response collegial, and to leave a diff to that comment as my sole response to the comment on the articles' talk pages.

That contributor has a pattern of erasing other contributors' good faith concerns from their talk page. Recently they started cutting my good faith concerns from their talk page and pasting them on to my talk page. I am concerned that this is not a substitute for offering a meaningful, substantive response. I am concerned that this practice is confusing for readers of my talk page. I have asked them to curtail this practice. Geo Swan (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your post here looks more than a monologue and is again full of false statements and i am not going into all of that and please stop posting uncivil false accusations to my talk page.


 * I once again ask you to give up your WP:ownership behavior and to discuss content issue in a civil manner.


 * I have ask you many times now over month to offer a meaningful, substantive response to my questions and i am still waiting.


 * Instead you continue to refuse to answer my posts and instead started to strike my comments to your talk page and to ignore my civil request and questions. I can only repeat it again. Please stop this disruptive behavior. Looks like we work in the same field and i guess we will do it for a long time to come. So better as i said have a look again at WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:ownership and let's continue to improve the section we both work on. IQinn (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your unwillingness to give responsible answers to good faith contributors who have good faith concerns about your edits is, I am sorry to say, a sign that you are the contributor with serious ownership issues. I urge you to remember that you are fallible, just like all the rest of us, and are capable of making mistakes.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That is wrong. The one who does not answer to good faith contributors is you. I have given you some links above and i am still waiting. I have also never showed any sign of ownership in contrast to you. Please have a another look what we here on Wikipedia mean by ownership behavior WP:ownership. I know you i have pointed you to this policy before but you keep misinterpreting it. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, as above, your denials are simply not credible. My record is very clear, by wikipedia standard I make heroic efforts to offer a civil, meaningful response to every civil, specific question or concern.  At my discretion I offer civil and meaningful responses to questions or concerns that are not civil, or are not specific.


 * One thing you fail to understand is that many of your comments are written in such fractured English that any meaning in the comment are incomprehensible. I am patient with contributors who write incomprehensible concerns.  And I was patient with you.  I tried to paraphrase what I thought you might have meant.  This is a common technique good faith people use to try understand unclear comments.  It is definitely not a personal attack.


 * But you denounced everyone of these good faith attempts to puzzle out what you might have meant. You claimed I was "misrepresenting" you.


 * Listen, I made a real effort, dozen of hours, in my good faith attempts to puzzle out and paraphrase your fractured English. I make no apology for stopping my efforts to puzzle out what you mean, when what you write is not clear.  Similarly, I make no apology for not responding to questions or concerns when you haven't been civil.


 * I don't know how many times I am going to have to try to explain this to you.
 * Your contributions are open to good faith review. So are mine.
 * I do a good job of responding to good faith, coherent questions and concerns. You don't.  Your record shows that your typical response to good faith questions and concerns is to state or imply that your questioner is acting in bad faith, through ownership behavior, wikilawyering, filibustering, and gaming the system.
 * Your general unwillingness to consider that those with questions and concerns over your edits are acting in good faith is what makes me assert that you illustrate ownership behavior, where I do not. Geo Swan (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

June 2nd, 2010
This response of mine was excised, without a meaningful response, slightly edited, and placed on my talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No i did not edit it. I do not edit the comments of other users in contrast to you. Sure sometimes minor edits of other users comment may be done i a good faith but if another user ask you not to edit his comments or even more to revert his comments back after you changed the original meaning than please have the courtesy to do so. I am still waiting IQinn (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Abdullah Abu Masood camp


The article Abdullah Abu Masood camp has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable terrorism traning camp

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. Oo7565 (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Abdullah Abu Masood camp
I have nominated Abdullah Abu Masood 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/Abdullah Abu Masood 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. Oo7565 (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Al Fand training camp
I have nominated Al Fand 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/Al Fand 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. IQinn (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Khalid Shekh Mohammed by Janet Hamlin -- after correcting the size of his nose.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Khalid Shekh Mohammed by Janet Hamlin -- after correcting the size of his nose.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. Image Screening Bot (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of School for the Jihad
I have nominated School for the Jihad, 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/School for the Jihad. 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. IQinn (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Mehrez training camp
I have nominated Mehrez 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/Mehrez 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. IQinn (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Kara Karga training camp
I have nominated Kara Karga 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/Kara Karga 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. IQinn (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Al Ghanad training camp
I have nominated Al Ghanad 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/Al Ghanad 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. IQinn (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Shamsad training camp
I have nominated Shamsad 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/Shamsad 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. IQinn (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Al Khair Camp
I have nominated Al Khair 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 Khair 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. IQinn (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Al Ahrar training camp
I have nominated Al Ahrar 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/Al Ahrar 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. IQinn (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

NOINDEX
Hi, and thank you for adding the noindex tag to some of your vast amount of Guantanamo related articles in your user space. I think it has been nearly a year now since you agreed to add this tag to your articles but still there are hundreds of article that do not have the tag. These articles appear often in search results and i would appreciate if you could add the tag also to the hundreds of articles that miss the tag. In the past you rejected my offer to add the tag for you and instead suggested i should post a list of these articles on your talk page. As i did this you started to simply remove my lists and did not answer me at all or claimed this would be a personal attack what it is not. So my question. Shall i post you further lists of untagged articles or can i just simply add the tag to these pages in your user space what would prevent us both from unnecessary spending time that could be better used to improve articles. Cheers! IQinn (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So long as you aren't fixing the great many mistakes you have left in article space I think it is highly inappropriate to keep suggesting I give you permission to edit my personal notes. IMO fixing your own mistakes, so other contributors aren't called upon to fix them for you, would be a far better use of your time.


 * I don't know how I can be more clear -- I will never agree for you to edit my notes. You use misleading edit summaries.  I'd have to check each edit you made.  This would not save me time.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To describe my edits in article space as mistakes is just your personal opinion and reminded me strongly on WP:Ownership. You are also acting against basic values of the Wikipedia project. You suggest to me to follow your POV in article space and for this favor you are going to add the NOINDEX tag to the Guantanamo related content in your user space?


 * Wrong again, my edit summaries are not more "misleading" than your edit summaries are "misleading". I am sorry to hear that you against prior promise are not willing to add the NOINDEX tag to the extensive collection of Guantanamo related sub-pages under your user name.


 * I have shown extensive patience over the time (nearly a year now) to work with you and to fix this problem. I am sorry but now i have to say, your extensive Ownership behavior and general unwillingness is disruptive for the Wikipedia project. Please do understand you do not "own" the sub-pages under your user name. IQinn (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Iqinn, WRT your errors, please don't pretend that you are not well aware that your very extensive use of references that contained only a bare-naked URL represents a very serious problem, one that must be addressed, and one you explicitly stated you were going to leave to other contributors to fix. Please don't pretend you are not well aware of the discussion you initiated, last January, in the WP:Help desk about your extensive use of unattributed direct quotes from the NYTimes, Guantanamo Docket.  I believe you have made many other extensive errors.  But these two I know you have acknowledged, and that you have made essentially no effort to correct.


 * Your accusation that I am breaking a promise is both incorrect, and a serious lapse on your part from the wikipedia's civility policies and conventions.


 * Anyone who reviews your contribution history can see for themselves that your assertion that you have shown extensive patience is wildly untrue. I reviewed the earliest history of the wiki-id Iqinn, and it was a relief to see how, a year ago, you treated the good faith comments of other contributors as if they were personal attacks.


 * You have stated or implied bad faith on the part of your contributors more times than I care to count. Please don't deny that your contribution history is full of unprovoked, unsubstantiated accusations.


 * I believe it is my contribution history that shows extensive patience -- not yours.


 * WRT ownership. My record shows I make an effort to engage those who have civil, serious questions about my contributions in civil and collegial dialogue.  I believe your record shows that you routinely blow off civil and collegial questions and concerns, or improperly characterize them as personal attacks -- as if you were incapable of error.  People with ownership issues don't engage other contributors in civil and collegial dialogue; and they don't acknowledge mistakes.  So far as I am concerned, your unwillingness to engage other contributors in civil, serious, collegial replies to the good faith concerns of other contributors shows that you are the one with serious ownership issues.


 * WRT WP:User pages -- once again I believe you are misinterpreting our policies. User pages says:


 * I urge you to start acknowledging your own fallibility, start acknowledging your own mistakes, start fixing your own mistakes, start being open to the good faith concerns you have made mistakes by good faith contributors, and stop accusing those who try to engage you in civil dialogue of filibustering or wikilawyering, and start taking their concerns seriously. Geo Swan (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * When someone is filibustering or wikilawyering than i will continue to spell this out in the future and as i said my edits are not "mistakes" that's just your misguided opinion and it make me think if you have ever successful worked in an collaborate project. I frequently do so and enjoy it.


 * You promised to add the NOINDEX tag but you did not do so and it is absolutely not uncivil to spell out this fact.


 * Yes i have shown extensive patience as my edit history clearly shows. It took nearly a year to fix this issue with the NOINDEX tag that could have been fixed in hours if you would have been more cooperative. I do not know how to say it in a more polite form. It is just a fact. IQinn (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe you are trolling, and that your repeated, wildly inappropriate assertions that I am a promise breaker, or that of the two of us you are the patient one, are merely meant to provoke me.


 * Quit trolling. Start showing other contributors you can communicate in good faith.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not change or move my contributions
Like you did here. This belongs to my nomination and the update like all other contributions have timestamps. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that, by the conventional standards for deletion fora, your update, should have gone at the end of the discussion. I make no apology for moving your comment to where it belonged.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice?
You remove large sections of an articles talk page. I assume that was an accident. Right? For the moment i have reverted the talk page back and you should re-submit your comment to my post. This time hopefully without removing other content. IQinn (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A Guantanamo template
We've got a zillion articles on Guantanamo, and many of them say that, as of X date there are Y# of detainees currently being held there. I noticed Guantanamo Bay detention camp uses a number as of January. The less frequently updated articles have older counts.

It would be really nice if we had a template with this number that can be updated in only one place. I'll grant that this would have been a better idea five years ago, but it's not too late.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Template writing is not one of my strong suits.  Do you have expertise in it?  Geo Swan (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never tried it before, but I'll give it a look.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First try of template RemainingAtGuantanamo:
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to be working OK. Congratulations.
 * I left a more recent refernce at Template talk:RemainingAtGuantanamo.
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By all means, feel free to change it whenever you've got a better number. I didn't think the number was current anyway, which is actually pretty bad considering that Wikipedia is otherwise the most comprehensive GTMO reference there is.
 * I don't have my heart set on the current wording either. We might even change the "as of" phrase.  All I'm really sure of is that it needs to include the reference, preferably with a ref name.
 * BTW: I don't know if I ever told you that I once saw a discussion about GTMO on C-SPAN, and a GTMO-lawyer or advocate briefly said a word about Wikipedia being an excellent resource.  It's just too bad they didn't mention your name!
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Majid bin Hamed bin Abdullah Alhasiri.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Majid bin Hamed bin Abdullah Alhasiri.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. Image Screening Bot (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Pul Sayad Compound
I have nominated Pul Sayad Compound, 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/Pul Sayad Compound. 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. IQinn (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Toran training camp
I have nominated Toran 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/Toran 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. IQinn (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Kut Bakram training camp
I have nominated Kut Bakram 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/Kut Bakram 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. IQinn (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Talukan training camp
I have nominated Talukan 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/Talukan 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. IQinn (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Kun Saiaf training camp
I have nominated Kun Saiaf 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/Kun Saiaf 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. IQinn (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)