User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2011-11

__NOINDEX__

'''If you are considering initiating an xfd on material I started

a heads-up
I just replied to your a***********r@yahoo-dot-com account in response to an email I received from you. That email from you was a group mailing with eight other recipients. The total contents of the email was a link to a “halo3experience” that eventually resolved to a website with a .in (India) top-level domain. That website just splats up a Java-based spoof screen purporting to be a Windows virus scan. Being a Mac user, the experience was less than convincing. My “virus scan” showed I was infected with all sorts of stuff (I’m not). I assume the intent is to get people to download a trojan of some sort. Anyway, it appears that either your Yahoo account has been hacked or that your computer has been infected and hijacked to turn it into a spambot. Greg L (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've changed my yahoo password, and erased almost everyone from my contacts list.  Thanks for the heads-up.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I got one of these too, one of the hazards of the modern age I suppose. Stick me back on your new contacts list.
 * Best wishes. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  18:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Grisoft says no virus. Ad-aware at work.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, good. I really like Comcast. They filter out virtually all spam. And one uses e-mail client software resident on your own computer so your contacts are in your computer, not in the cloud where a contacts list can be hacked. I’m also on a Mac. The totality of all of that means “no problemo.” I can always be reached by my “E-mail this user” link so there is not much use storing my address anywhere. Greg L (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom's emergency towing vessel fleet
Hi Geo Swan, just a note: I've expanded your article with content from the main article on Emergency tow vessels and have also moved it to that page name (towing vessel) is the British term and should be the title too. Regards, De728631 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for informing me of your expansion -- excellent work. As per WP:OWN I try not to think of articles I started as my articles.  Let me repeat that your expansion was fine work.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! With "your article" I was just referring to the fact that you did the initial work, no possessive pun intended :) De728631 (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mohamed Jawad
I added three articles of reporting from Kabul just after the attack Jawad is accused of doing. And one article from Kabul in January 2003 that is extensive for the subject. Mohamed Jawad Don't know what to do with them in the article yet, so I'm asking for discussion on the talk page. Please join in. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * archiveurl isn't supposed to be used unless a link is dead. I'm fine with providing a mirror, but live links shouldn't use archiveurl. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a vague recollection of participating in a discussion over which approach to mirrors should be used -- archiveurl, or appending an explicit link to the mirror site after the cite template. My recollection is that several other contributors went on record that archiveurl should always be the first choice.  But I can't remember why, or where this discussion was.  My major objection to archiveurl is that it swaps out the original URL, and since the archiving site I use most often has signigicant downtime itself, I would prefer only using it when the original site has gone 404.


 * So I have no objection to using the other approach.


 * I started to draft my reply to your Jawad questions -- haven't finished yet.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is new but I recently found that there is a "deadurl" parameter in these citation templates. Set it to "deadurl=no" and it will use the original link as the primary one.
 * BTW: The user in "misinterpretation and mischaracterization of sources" (in the section below) appears to be responding in that article's talk.  Or, at least he did.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/references
Restored, as you requested. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

misinterpretation and mischaracterization of sources
The following two edits trigger my concern: .

I think they are controversial edits and you stop with that.

You should address the given reasons.

"blank the page and redirect because the sources have been misinterpreted and mischaracterized, just have a look at the Washington post article"

I am going to revert you back. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to not repeat your action -- i suggest you write a draft and let the community review it. Your misinterpretation and mischaracterization of sources is troublesome. 27.122.16.74 (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I initiated a sockpuppet investigation as I believe this comment shares the same style as that of blocked User:Iqinn. Geo Swan (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

My 2¢ at User talk:Mkativerata
I thought I should let you know I have honest concerns about Mkativerata’s conduct and honestly and frankly expressed them on his talk page. Greg L (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. Just 38 minutes after my post on his talk page, he marched back to ANI and requested a block on Epeefleche . He is taking this all too personally (perceives all criticism as a challenge to his authority and a personal affront) and has lost perspective as to what Wikipedia is about. Greg L (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Rais Khan (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rais Khan (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rais Khan (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wording use in "Edit summary"
Dear Geo Swan,

Can you do better in choosing your verbiage in your "Edit summary"?

Instead of: "fix refs" (which implies that you are fixing something that is broken; and this is misleading), try:


 * "Adding author link to reference in preparation for article creation."


 * (If you use Mozilla Firefox it will cache what you type in edit summaries so you don't have to retype them every time.)

It is also better if you create the article first and try to avoid red links if you can.

Keep on moving forward. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Finding all the articles that will contain links to an article I am shortly about to create is an aide to populating that article with its own references. Thanks for your interest.


 * I do use firefox, but I prefer to keep the number of edit summaries it remembers sparse. When I am going create the article I the new wikilink points at shortly I have not regarded "fix refs" as misleading.  Are you suggesting I should?  If so, why?  The wikidocuments you reference only recommend not creating redlinks when you had no intention of creating the article, correct?  Geo Swan (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the articles that I noted are only suggestions, not policy. "Add link" is better than "Fix ref" > Best O Fortuna (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Nonfree use rationale listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Nonfree use rationale. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Nonfree use rationale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)