User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2012-05

__NOINDEX__

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

Inayatullah move from 2009
I'm not sure if I ever responded to you on this. The reason for the move is that there are many Inayatullahs, including myself actually (I'm Saim Inayatullah) :P. I don't mind if you change the disambiguating term "detainee" to something else, all that matters is that there is a disambiguating term. I honestly struggled figuring out an appropriate title for the article.

If I did in fact answer this in 2009 I'm sorry for bringing it up again haha. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 00:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if you didn't reply in 2009, better late than never.


 * I checked, since you started the disambiguation page, quite a few namesakes have been added. Names with more than two namesakes do need a disambiguation page.


 * The main problem with the disambiguation page you created was that it didn't point to the article on the captive. But that was fixed a long time ago too.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Starbucks at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Starbucks at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base 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/Starbucks at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base 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 high-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. Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OBL bodyguards

 * 1) As the article creator, you had a vested interest in the article that you did not disclose in the AfD and should have done. In this case, you were not simply a disinterested observer who thought the article was notable, but rather the creator and major contributor to the article.
 * 2) You indeed are allowed by policy to remove a prod from an article you've created, but when you haven't touched the article in a year and it's a mess, it is indeed bad form to remove a prod without comment.  It smacks too much of "you can't delete my stuff because it's mine."
 * 3) In your case, you actually compound the problem by actively informing users that you are "so very active" on Wikipedia (via your userbox) right next to your "xfds are potentially not even my fault" statement.
 * 4) So there's a context here that makes AGF difficult, which is "I'm so active that I know what I'm doing on here much better than you possibly could, and any potential mistakes I might conceivably have made aren't my fault, either, because the community guidelines have changed, so you probably shouldn't delete anything I've ever created, because as I mentioned before, I know what I'm doing a lot better than you do."
 * 5) Now, the other interesting thing is that you've only been on WP eight months longer than I have, and major policies have not really changed that much over that span of time.
 * 6) So yeah, it's a problem, as is your stalking my contribs.
 * 7) As to your other question: no, I was not.  Considering the article had not been materially edited in over a year, a minor contributor popping up out of nowhere and objecting to a prod on a article he or she had edited a year ago would indeed be very odd, if not downright suspicious.
 * 8) 83 editors with 166 edits is literally two per person, and not one of those other 83 editors (most of whom were only creating or reverting vandalism) even participated in the AfD discussion, much less contested the prod.
 * 9) However, my point still stands, and if you feel I am inaccurate, perhaps you should look at the context of your actions. MSJapan (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is my user talk page, and so I am going to number your points to make it easier to respond to them.
 * I would be interested if you could point to a wikidocument that established this obligation you mentioned. I once used to offer a disclaimer when I was the oriiginal article creator.  But no one seemed interested in these disclaimers, and no one else makes them, and I am not aware of any policy that recommends them.
 * First, I dispute the article was a "mess". Second, it is counter-policy to delete articles on notable topics based on our personal interpretation that they are a "mess". We have specific criteria for deletion.  Being a "mess" isn't one of them.  Third, I don't own the articles I started, I don't leap on ever change made by other contributors.  So I don't regard a long gap between my personal contributions as relevant.
 * Are you telling me that you regard a discrete note describing my activity level as problematic?
 * I believe that my contribution history shows I bend over backwards to take into account civilly expressed concerns. I am not always right, never claimed I was.  I actively own up and acknowledge when I have made mistakes.  My record shows that.  I have no idea where you got the idea I ever claimed I generally know better than others.  I do, specifically, think you make a mistake by not complying with our policies, guidelines and conventions on collegiality.  It is both my interpretation of policy, and my personal experience that it is a good idea to continue to act as if we still assumed good faith in others even when we started to have private doubts.  The main advantage to not acting as if some other party doesn't deserve the assumption of good faith, based on a mere suspicion, is that it does not present the appearance to third parties and newcomers that the wikipedia is a nest of discord.  Sometimes keeping our private doubts is to our personal benefit, when we later realize our doubts were mispaced.  Other times the other party may have, in a temporary moment of weakness, said or done something that could be considered a lapse from good faith, but our avoidance of escalating, by avoiding responding in kind, shows them that they too can return to operating in good faith.  Parties can return to clear good faith in these circumstances, either because they calmed down, or they are embarrassed to be the only party using provocative language.  I draw your attention to the fact I have not responded in kind and challenged your good faith.
 * Our policies have undergone many significant changes during my time on the wikipedia.
 * I don't agree with your characterization that I am stalking your contributions.
 * Do you mean to suggest that you shuld consider anything that hasn't been edited in a year is fair game for you to prod? You do realize we are all supposed to be trying to build an encyclopedia -- not tear one down?
 * How many of those 83 editors spent more time on one edit than you did deciding to prod the article? One interpretation of your comments is that you don't like high-handed know-it-alls, who set their opinion above that of others.  I'd be interested in how you can reconcile that position with discounting without explanation the 83 previous editors who did not think the article merited deletion.
 * I find this last comment cryptic, and, after making a good faith attempt to guess as to what you probably meant I am going to feel it best to ignore it, unless you make the effort to clarify your meaning. Geo Swan (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no policy, but rather a behavior guideline - WP:Etiquette says "Do not make misrepresentations"; it's a matter of not falsely stacking a vote. You started the article, so of course you're going to vote to keep it.  All you had to say was keep as creator.  That's it!  Nobody says you can't be biased - you just can't pretend that you aren't.
 * Irrelevant at this juncture, as the article was kept, but it needed substantial work to do that. When I saw it, it was based on allegations in one document, taken from confessions under torture.  How on earth is that in compliance with NPOV?
 * I do when you use it to prop yourself up and try to tell people you don't make mistakes by blaming WP in general. If I claim I'm one of the most active Wikipedians, that tells other people I should know a lot.  When I then tell people that "my material is only XFd-able because policy changed", that is downright arrogance.  There are many more editors who have been here longer than either of us who do not take that position at all, ever.
 * If you're not always right, and you're OK with it, why have your XfD note to shift the blame elsewhere than yourself?
 * I've been here only eight months less than you, and I've never seen anything that was compliant become non-compliant due to changes in WP in that time. Our core editing policies have not changed that much; they've simply been refined.  Nothing has been ever been changed on such an immediate and grand scale such that fundamental changes to core policies occurred.
 * All of your edits on May 15 after you commented on my talkpage were exclusively to XfDs I started, or material related to XFDs I started, and which have nothing to do with your usual editing pattern (creating Squire Rushnell included). So don't even attempt to say otherwise.
 * What I choose to prod is my policy-based decision, and encyclopedically speaking, an article cannot be written based on one source.
 * What other editors have done on an article (or how many have done it) over time is irrelevant - the basis for judging an article is as it stands at a given moment. You're holding up a straw man here for some reason, and I'm not going to bother addressing it any further.
 * The reason you can't understand my last comment is because you refactored the whole statement and lost the contextual reference as a result. That's why you shouldn't do that. MSJapan (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 19:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Delawarevalleymap.png


A tag has been placed on File:Delawarevalleymap.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This was actually a WP:CSD -- an image already available on the commons. Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Alumnae Theatre
I have trimmed and removed the wires from a recent photo of yours of the theatre which was an old firehall building on Berkeley Street and used it in List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto. I have kept the older one by SimonP in the Alumnae Theatre article, since it shows the building being used for that purpose. I thought you would like to know. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Pages in your userspace
After Requests for comment/Geo Swan, I have waited over a year for you to follow the guidance from that RfC. However, it looks as if the vast majority of old pages in your userspace, many of them containing info about living people, haven't been used or removed since. You have e.g. User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley (with the accompanying User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Yvonne Bradley), deleted at AfD over two years ago, but until last month included in mainspace categories. At other pages, all you did was remove them from the "Stale Userspace drafts" category.

Please go through your user space and remove all older pages (e.g. over 6 months old), certainly when they contain info on living people. Fram (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Ledford
Thanks for the note. The article was not substantially changed from creation until deletion, but I'm not inclined to undelete as a BLP1E. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not for the reason that it was prodded. I'm declining to email it because the subject is a BLP1E.  It's slightly slanderous because the weight of the article was on the allegations throughout its history, not because it was lying about him; however, my decline is based on the fact that I don't see any way for this subject to qualify for an article.  No compunction about giving you the sources, however; they are:
 * CIA man saw detainee abuse, News24, May 25, 2005
 * Navy SEAL Officer Found Not Guilty In Iraqi Detainee Beating Death, all headline news, May 28, 2005
 * These were the only sources; they were in the ELs section, and there were no inline citations. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I had been busy, this would have been TLDR. I'm not claiming that it's an attack page, but that throughout its history it was negatively POV.  You're correct that I believe that this subject cannot be covered in line with Wikipedia policy, but that's not because of the NPOV issue — it's because of the subject himself.  Throughout its history, the page looked at someone exclusively through news articles from the same period of time and wrote solely about the same incident in his life; it was a textbook example of a BLP1E, and if restored, I would nominate it for AFD precisely for that reason.  The sources I gave you in case you could demonstrate persistent coverage over time, in the hope that he might have received recent interest from news sources or coverage in academic publications.  Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, Fram's comment above this one contributed to my decision. I've not paid attention to this issue, so I'm not going to support you or to oppose you on this issue, but given the controversy on articles you've created on this topic, I'm hesitant to contribute to the controversy.  Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you want this for non-WP purposes? I never realised that, and I'm sorry; if you said it in your third message on my talk page, I missed it because of the sheer size of the message, and the same is true of declining to answer the second "general principle".  I thought you were planning to use it to recreate an article here.  I will not immediately email you the text, but only because I'm about to leave the house.  Please check your email periodically throughout the day; if I do not email it to you by tonight, blame it on forgetfulness and leave another note telling me that I forgot.  Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment left here to keep the thread in one place; I'll copy it to my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re your emailed comment — the PROD was placed by Akledford, who has no active contributions and who has no deleted contributions except the placement of the PROD on this article. Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Courcelles 03:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Kenny Ray Morrison
To be honest, I would still argue that this article should be deleted. My deletion nomination was, looking at it, phrased badly - it's not that the article had ceased being notable, but rather that with two years hindsight, it was clear to me that it never had achieved that level. You're welcome to take it to DRV, if you feel otherwise, and I would recommend you do so if you intend to reintroduce the content to the main article space.

The article is based entirely on records of the trial, and in one magazine article some years later which refers back to the trial as an example (among four others) of a cultural problem at USNA. This is multiple sourcing, but still seems to fall under material which "...cover[s] the person only in the context of a single event."

I hope this helps explain my nomination (as I recall it). Andrew Gray (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Two points -
 * a) I didn't say "information about him should be covered in an article about the event"; I noted that this person is only covere in the context that event. The event itself, to my eyes, is not one we would normally consider suitable for an independent article, and so the creation of an article to merge the content to would not seem an appropriate course of action.
 * b) You're right I should have notified - I do forget it more than I'd like, my apologies. An automated notifier for PROD (and other deletion processes) would seem an excellent backup, particularly if it were generalised to include nontrivial contributors; I know something like this has been debated for CFD nominations in the past and it may be worth re-proposing on WT:PROD. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)