User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2013-01

__NOINDEX__

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USCGC Paul Clark (WPC 1106), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Camp 7, Guantanamo, via google -a.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Camp 7, Guantanamo, via google -a.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Veggy  ( talk ) 09:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll watch this talk page so we can discuss the issue here. Being that Google was able to publicly publish this image, it follows that a free equivalent is possible (since Google is not a government entity). Whatever inconveniences may have to be surmounted to obtain the image, the possibility of free-replaceability fails to fulfill the first criterion for non-free use. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 09:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Google has gaps. It cooperates with governments, and will fog or black out sensitive regions -- like nuclear reactors -- when those governments inform them of the regions to obfuscate.  I'll bet that google's images of the site of the secret camp are obfuscated now.
 * Google, and its competitors, pay for the satellite images they use. Are you suggesting that WikiLeaks might purchase a handful of images from a commercial satellite?  Don't those commercial satellites have long term exclusive deals with their customers?  Aren't you suggesting that some non-profit, like WikiLeaks, outbid Google for access to some satellite provider's worldwide coverage, just for this single image?  If so, I have got to tell you, that strikes me as a suggestion not worth taking seriously.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into politics&mdash;it's a question of Wikipedia policy. This base, or whatever, still exists and is still potentially available to be photographed. The difficulties entailed (buying satellite time, getting on a plane and taking a picture) don't mitigate the potential of replaceability. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 21:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The image is here: . Nothing obfuscated about it, either. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 21:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, aren't you concerned that by arguing that a free image could be acquired, when, we all know this is inherently not possible, you appear to have already taken a political stand?
 * One of well admired science fiction writer Robert Heinlein's classic novels was entitled "The Man Who Sold The Moon". It was about a billionaire prepared to sacrifice his entire fortune to go to the moon.  NASA's actual moon program cost $20,000,000,000 in 1968 dollars.  Can we imagine if Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or that Mexican cell phone magnate were prepared to spend their entire fortune, and cut corners, they could make it to the moon?  While it is theoretically possible, it is science fiction, a fantasy.  An idea interesting to speculate about, and use in thought experiments -- but not to be taken seriously.
 * It seems to me that your suggestion a free satellite image of this secret base could be acquired is also a fantasy -- a wild speculative idea, not worth deleting an image over. Geo Swan (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Camp 7, Guantanamo, via google -a.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Camp 7, Guantanamo, via google -a.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — ξ xplicit  00:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Dixon (USCG Boatswains Mate)


The article Richard Dixon (USCG Boatswains Mate) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:SOLDIER. There are also no independent references

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Roger Dixon
Discussion taken to a correct forum Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. A question of "independence of refs" shouldn't be taken to the reliable sources forum. Bgwhite (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William Trump


The article William Trump has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:MILPEOPLE.  Only one independent, reliable reference that goes into any detail, thus fails WP:GNG.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop the insults

 * "I am going to assume that asking for the opinion of his or her colleagues at a second forum, when I had already raised the issue at WP:RSN was not a conscious effort to go "WP:Forum shopping", merely an innocent mistake."
 * You have just crossed the line. Thanks for the condescending insult above and other rude insults on the talk pages. You were asked by others to stop the deeming comments towards me.
 * You took it to the "Reliable noticeboard" which is the wrong board. I said the refs are reliable.  I took it to the military talk page where it should have been in the first place.  I see you refuse to listen to anything. At this point, please don't interact with me, leave any messages on my talk page or leave any more insulting message, period.  I'm done with you. Bgwhite (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Richard Dixon (USCG) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Dixon (USCG) 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/Richard Dixon (USCG) 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. Bgwhite (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Canadian AVGP Grizzly destroyed by an RPG in Darfur.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Canadian AVGP Grizzly destroyed by an RPG in Darfur.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Colombian security official appearing to wear Red Cross ID as a ruse.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Colombian security official appearing to wear Red Cross ID as a ruse.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cherry Street, Toledo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Trolley and Bascule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Geo Swan (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor confidentiality
Thanks for your e-mail. I agree and will check the articles to make sure of this. You've done so much good work, well-sourced and balanced; great to see your contributions.Parkwells (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It may be difficult to maintain that - the family page has labels on photographs and a list of all members. Parkwells (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Granted, other sites do include the name, and determined readers can follow our links and arrive at those sites. But since that individual is truly non-notable, by wikipedia standards, we can prevent their secret being outed to the more casually interested of their real-life acquaintances -- those who would stop here when our pages don't confirm their suspicions.


 * So, I think we can stop the more casual potential real-world harrassers. But should we?  I believe WP:BLP -- the policy on biographies of living people, recommends this kind of protection.  Frankly, I have disagreed with some instances where the authority of BLP was called upon to hide details, but this is an instance where I think its recommendations holds merit.  Email me if you want to hear where I thought it was misapplied.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Already Responded
My talk page, my rules. I am refactoring a comment left here by User:Lycurgus. They cut and pasted a comment I left on their page, rather than leave a diff. I hate it when people do that, because the time stamps don't correspond to those in the revision history.

I owe Lycurgus a little apology. I didn't mean to leave the same message on their talk page twice. I use my old computer sometimes, when my number one computer is busy with a complicated task. I used it again earlier today. I fired up firefox, which restored my tabs as of when it last crashed. One of those tabs had a the question to Lycurgus in an edit box. I didn't realize how long it had been since I drafted it. I didn't remember completing it, and leaving it a first time. That is how I left the same message twice. 2013-01-07 13:56, 2013-01-26 13:20. Again, sorry, I don't usually leave duplicate messages.

A diff to Lycurgus's reply, which included my original question(s) and their new comment, reproduced below:


 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Please don't put this on my talk page again, I'm trying to break my wiki habit and want things to stay as they are. I responded to the above and left it there for a week then archived it. Lycurgus (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't put this on my talk page again, I'm trying to break my wiki habit and want things to stay as they are. I responded to the above and left it there for a week then archived it. Lycurgus (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * }

That being said -- I don't understand the last three of those comments they left on their talk page: , ,,. Geo Swan (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)