User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2008-January-to-June

2004, 2005, 2006-01--2006-06, 2006-07--2006-10, 2006-10--2005-12, 2007-01--2007-06, 2007-07--2007-09, 2007-10--2007-12, 2008-01--2008-06, 2008-07--2008-09, 2008-10--2008-12, 2009-01--2009-03, 2009-04--2009-06, 2009-07--2009-09, 2009-10--2009-12, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2010-03, 2010-04, 2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07, 2010-08, 2010-09, 2010-10, 2010-11, 2010-12, 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-03, 2011-04, 2011-05, 2011-06, 2011-07, 2011-08, 2011-09, 2011-10, 2011-11, 2011-12, 2012-01, 2012-02, 2012-03, 2012-04, 2012-05, 2012-06, 2012-07, 2012-08, 2012-09, 2012-10, 2012-11, 2012-12, 2013-01, 2013-02, 2013-03, 2013-04, 2013-05, 2013-06, 2013-07, 2013-08, 2013-09, 2013-10, 2013-11, 2013-12, 2014-01, 2014-02, 2014-03, 2014-04, 2014-05, 2014-06, 2014-07, 2014-08, 2014-09, 2014-10, 2014-11, 2014-12, 2015-01, 2015-02, 2015-03, 2015-04, 2015-05, 2015-06, 2015-07, 2015-08, 2015-09, 2015-10, 2015-11, 2015-12, 2016-01, 2016-02, 2016-03, 2016-04, 2016-05, 2016-06, 2016-07, 2016-08, 2016-09, 2016-10, 2016-11, 2016-12, 2017-01, 2017-02, 2017-03, 2017-04, 2017-05, 2017-06, 2017-07, 2017-08, 2017-09, 2017-10, 2017-11, 2017-12, 2018-01, 2018-02, 2018-03, 2018-04, 2018-05, 2018-06, 2018-07, 2018-08, 2018-09, 2018-10, 2018-11, 2018-12, 2019-01, 2019-02, 2019-03, 2019-04, 2019-05, 2019-06, 2019-07, 2019-08, 2019-09, 2019-10, 2019-11, 2019-12, 2020-01, 2020-02, 2020-03, 2020-04, 2020-05, 2020-06, 2020-07, 2020-08, 2020-09, 2020-10, 2020-11, User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/list

1929 birthdate

I got it from the lifespan brackets at the top of his article. The article conflicted itself by saying that he was born in 1929 in the lifespan brackets, then in 1939 in the body of the article. It needed to be standardized. The obituary at Deaths in December 2007 said he was about 78, therefore I standardized it at 1929. I'm not familiar at all with the subject - as long as the article is consistent and representative of the sources, I don't care which is used. Cheers, CP 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

{{prod}}?

You're absolutely right - my bad. I should have messaged you, but I didn't. I'm sorry about that. I mistakenly thought that the article's creator automatically received a message concerning article deletion; my mistake. Thank you for pointing this out to me. BWH76 (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I did want to add, though, it is also highly irregular that the page creator is the one removing Notability and Deletion tags from their own article. It would lead me to believe that there may be a conflict of interest in your editing of this article. I am going to replace the Notability tag and we can continue the discussion the the Talk page. BWH76 (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded here and here. I suspect my correspondent is mistaken about the propriety of those who started an article removing {{prod}}s placed upon them. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|left|48px|]]An editor has nominated Al Qaida facilitator, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qaida facilitator and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mika Edwards

An editor has nominated Mika Edwards, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mika Edwards and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA Questions

John Carter has posted responses to your questions on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Warlordjohncarter. Pastordavid (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dirty thirty

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dirty thirty, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Dirty thirty. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 02:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Guantanamo Articles

Thank you for taking quite some time to once again [| explain your concerns] with my editing.

The edits I have made in regards to your Gitmo articles fall under several basic categories:

• Notability issues. Many of the articles you have created fail the Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria, specifically under criteria for what is "not news." Articles, for example, on Jennifer Daskal (a Human Rights Watch lawyer), Jeffrey D. Gordon (a spokesman for the DoD), and Heather Cerveny (a paralegal who claims US soldiers abuse prisoners because of something she heard in a bar). These individuals have been in the news for a brief period and they are notable for only one event. Your comment that, for example, Jeffrey Groharing, WILL be in the news in the future; that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball answers that.
• Sourcing issues/incorrect information. The implication that Groharing accused his superiors of ordering him to withhold evidence is simply untrue. There have been no accusations of the kind. The claim that "Kuebler and the question whether detainees should be able to represent themselves were featured in the October 2007 issue of the Yale Law Journal..." is misleading: he is mentioned once in that article (on page 21) and in a completely different context than the Kuebler Wikipedia article implies. The request for citation for the Incarceration Section of the Omar Khadr article, your response to this request was met with the provision of 3 individual reference (one of which was repeated). In not one of those sources does it claim that "The two years he spent there were the only education he had ever had, and he reported being sorry to leave." I am referencing only a few examples of what I've come across so far to illustrate why I am making these edits.
• The handling of relatively unknown people. Some of these articles have information that is discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. In the Groharing article, for example, there is mention of his times in running marathons. If Groharing is indeed worthy of having a separate entry in Wikipedia, this piece of information about him fails [Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_who_are_relatively_unknown | this Wikipedia policy].

This is nothing personal and I am not targeting your edits explicitly. I congratulate you on the fact that you, as you've stated, "write on controversial topics." Your prodigious efforts on the Gitmo trials helped to generate my interest in the subject.

This interest, though, has led me to search and fact check the sources listed in these Wiki articles and I'm dismayed to find inaccuracies. I do not think that these are intentional {POV} lapses, so I am editing the articles one by one in an effort to make them both more accurate representations of fact and to improve the coverage of the subject itself through a better body of work.

As I've repeatedly stated, many of these entries on individuals related to the USA v. Khadr case are not notable in and of themselves. I think that your suggestion that there be an article, "USA v. Omar Khadr," is a good idea. The Khadr article is quite lengthy and much of the article may be better suited on its own. The individuals involved with the case may be presented in a unified and contextually-driven article.

If you would agree to this, I will place merge tags on the articles in question (to see whether there may be other differing opinions)and we can together work on making 2 better articles ("Omar Khadr" and "USA v. Omar Khadr").

Again, thank you for taking the time to be in touch with me and I hope that we can come to an agreement on this! BWH76 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 14 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mike Trinh, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Guest house (lodging)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Guest house (lodging), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Guest house (lodging). ukexpat (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Civil rights abuses

Hi Geo, I'm happy to respond to your question -- and thanks for leaving me a note rather than just reverting, like so many editors do. In a nutshell, Category:Guantanamo Bay detainment camp is, of course, properly listed under Category:Human rights abuses. However, Category:Civil rights abuses -- which is a particular sub-category of Category:Human rights abuses -- should be reserved for abuses which are properly considered abuses of civil rights, which are distinguished from the broader notion of human rights. (Just as Category:Civil rights is a sub-category of Category:Human rights.) Hope that helps! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Guantanamo/Muqbil Wadi'ee

I've checked out some of the work you've done on here, and I have to say I really am impressed. You seem to know the subject of Guantanamo Bay detainees quite well.
I had a question. Regarding Muqbil Wadi'ee's ties to several detainees, do you remember where in the two PDF files the connection is mentioned? They're both about 100 pages, technically I could scroll through myself but i'm trying to see if I can save myself some time. I have a number of friends studying at his school in Dammaaj and was almost considering going there myself, so it comes as quite a shock, those there always knew him as a man opposed to al Qaeda and groups similar to him. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The page number are in the references. And I put the page number of the beginning of each memo at the end of the URL, after a sharp sign. If you open the pdf in your browser you can see the page number at the end of the URL in your browser's URL location bar.

There were a couple more captive I haven't added yet.

Do you know Arabic? Can you read Arabic? Maybe I could ask you to take a brief look at a couple of mysterious pages? The DoD released 1000 new documents last September. Unlike their previous release in 2006 they provided indices this time. I have found some errors in those documents, some unindexed pages in Arabic.

Pages 1-6 of this document weren't indexed. I figured out whose case pages 1 and 2 related to. Pages 3 and 5 mystify me. They are duplicates of a report card for a young kid in an orphanage in Somalia. Pages 4 and 6 are in Arabic. Pages 4 and 6 look like are duplicates too. If you can read Arabic could you confirm that for me? Could you confirm whether they are the originals the report card was translated from?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, my Arabic is not up to par. I can have small conversations with people at my mosque and that's it. When it comes to translations here on Wikipedia, I usually go bug User:Slackerlawstudent for help with that. I can look at it for you but I would ask him too. Tell him that Mezzo told you too and said that he has tons of free time too...  ;) MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Zaynab Khadr

Thanks for letting me know. I've posted on Talk:Zaynab Khadr making my thoughts clear. I'm not exactly clear on the proper process for contesting a prod tag; let me know if there's something else I can or should do. Thanks, --Saforrest (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The rules for {{prod}} are that to contest one you need to (1) simply remove the tag; (2) explain why you don't think the justification applies, on the talk page.

If no one removes the {{prod}} tag, five days after it was placed any administrator is authorized to remove the article.

Many quality-control patrollers will step up to a full {{afd}} nomination when their {{prod}} is removed. It seems to me that they often don't bother giving the explanation for its removal a meaningful consideration. And, unfortunately, I find the commitment to considering other's attempts at civil discussion very low in the deletion fora.

SO, I have changed how I respond to {{prod}}s. I don't remove the tag right away. I try to engage the nominator in a civil discussion first.

The tag BWH76 placed is not a {{prod}} tag. It is a {{notability}} tag, one that can precede a {{prod}} or full scale nomination for deletion.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vymucany

I've replied on my talk page. One thing. Don't accuse me of forgetting what it's like to be a newbie without some diff's please. That's plain rude. I've tried to help this editor by explaining and userfying his article. You have about 3.5 times as many contributions as I have, and have been editing for many, many months more. You might like to consider that I am a newbie compared to you ..... Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Taxi to the Dark Side

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Taxi to the Dark Side, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Abdellah Ouzghar

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Abdellah Ouzghar, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Abdellah Ouzghar. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

standards

The article could be merged with Communications in Pakistan, but the original form of the article was utterly unencyclopedic, hence the AfD.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to merging the current content. Thanks.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources

I would stress the authorship of the CSRTs being different from that of the original compilers and handlers, and if the CSRTs themselves have "bibliographies" or footnotes, pointing that out. I hate seeing all your work AFDed, please don't hesitate to ask me for help - I have voted "Keep" on about 90% of your articles and don't mind doing some legwork to try and find sources you may've missed that mention the individual. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as per Stephen Abraham's affidavit, there was an arms-length relationship between the compilers of the memos at OARDEC and the staff at JTF-GTMO. They weren't under the command of the director of JTF-GTMO. The were under the command of the Designated Civilian Official.

So long as you have the deletion-sorting page on your watchlist you will get a heads-up on any deletions. That way no one who looks at our pages can be concerned about "vote-soliciting".

We should look into making a more general deletion-sorting page for articles on terrorism-related topics. Geo Swan (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the Gitmo lawyer, it doesn't specifically say that she's working to free a Canadian, she could simply be of Canadian-birth, and similarly, it says she's working to defend them - not that she's actually visited the base. You could always eMail the author and ask, however - it sounds more like he didn't want to confuse the reader with names, than that he was sword to preserve her anonymity. :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't think she was working for a Canadian. But it was very difficult for Edney and for Hick's lawyers to meet with their clients, because they weren't American citizens. We may think of Clive Stafford Smith as a Brit, but he lived for decades in the USA. I think he must be a joint citizen. So, even if this unnamed lawyer is not representing a Canadian, it is remarkable for any lawyer who is not a US citizen to get access to Gitmo. Mind you, I guess I don't know she got access to Gitmo clients. Maybe she was doing something else on behalf of a Guantanamo client that did not involve accessing the client. The article said something about her interviewing witnesses in Yemen.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

Saw your comment on enhanced interrogation and used the sources you provided to the unlawful combatant talk page. Thanks and keep up the good work.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree

"The convention for responding on talk pages is that your comment should be indented -- one new indentation beyond the one you are responding to. "

Hm, I was sure I did that.

" In the case of [ this comment of yours] prefixing your comment with two colons would have been appropriate."

Ah, no. I one indent, since I was replying to the guy.

"In addition, as you made your followup comment after mine your should have followed mine.

If you don't follow this convention later readers can't understand who is replying to whom."

I don't agree. Then its totally confusing when you answer 50 messages later.

"I am going to place your comment in the conventional spot."

Really... well I can't be bothered to move it, but I'll do the same the next time. And restore a lot of crap on my talk page another time.--IceHunter (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the individual whose comment you were replying to already indented? Then your should have been deleted twice.

If you think you should butt-in, and place your comment immediately after the comment you want to respond to, rather than after earlier responses to that comment, how do you think future readers are going to figure out who they were responding to? This is particularly a mistake if you don't follow the indentation convention. Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. --IceHunter (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. I am also appreciative that you asked some additional questions, allowing me the opportunity to increase your knowledge of my background. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

tell someone who cares

boo hoo. Your category got changed. So nominate it for changing back. Please spare me your sob story. Don't bother responding; this is literally the last edit I am making on WP. Snocrates 08:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't even ask what drives people like me to check, double-check and triple-check everything anybody says... ;) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Al Libi

Thanks for the Al Libi disambig page! I was mistaking Faraj and Layth for the same person, ESPECIALLY because this afternoon CNN showed a picture of Faraj during their report on Layth's death. Luvcraft (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, glad it helped. They also showed pictures of Abu Qatada. And, when Abu Faraj Al Libi was captured he too was described as "al Qaeda's number three".

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

eMail

Indeed, can you either drop me a phonecall or respond to my quick eMail? Since it's rather last-minute, I'd need to sort out details with my workplace, airlines and such rather last-minute, but certainly a rare opportunity. Looking forward to hearing from you ASAP. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You have any of the ARB/CSRT documents for Sami Al Hajj lying around? I notice the article says he was carrying American $10,000 bills, which - according to the WP article Large denominations of United States currency - abolished in 1969 by Nixon. Got confirmation of the charge? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked the memo, that is what the allegation says. It could easily be a different denomination. At least one captive testified that he carried, um Kuwaiti currency, rather than USD, because they used larger denominations. Geo Swan (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Omar Khadr

Hi - I wanted to let you know that I am going to work on the Omar Khadr article more. To avoid any ill will, I'd like to work on it together with you rather than disagreeing back and forth throughout the editing.

Here's what I propose: I think that we should split up this article to Omar Khadr and USA v. Omar Khadr (which, to give credit where credit is due, I believe you proposed originally). The first (Omar Khadr)should give biographical info, basic context, etc. The second should focus exclusively on the court case and the events directly related to the case. I say this for a couple of reasons.

First, we can include many of the individuals whose notability I've questioned (or that we've discussed). After we create a unified article explaining the case, we can then tag those individuals' pages with Merge to get others' opinions as to whether each individual merits a standalone article - not just the opinions of you, me, and Sherurcij. This way, we incorporate a general consensus, we've explained the subject in context (including the roles of each individual whose page you've created), and it will be much easier to read.

Second, the length of the Omar Khadr article is over 60 kb which can mean it's time for a split as per WP:LENGTH.

Third, I think if we do this, we'll all be able to avoid most future questions of WP:CFORK in editing these subjects.

Lastly, I think that if we agree to try to work together on this, it will preempt AFD discussions on articles we've discussed - this would free up your time to create new articles and mine for working on other subjects.

One way or the other, I do think that it is necessary to place Current Court Case tags on many of these Gitmo articles since much is still somewhere in the legal process.

I hope that you realize that this is a fair proposal for you. I'd further suggest that we try this and if it becomes apparent that it isn't mutually agreeable, we can revert everything and go back to the drawing board. I look forward to hearing your thoughts - BWH76 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: apologies

No worries. The citation should go after the text, not before it. I still think that this is trivia (eg, as it seems to have little to do with the actual base), but at least its cited. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barbara D. Metcalf

No need to get paranoid. I seriously doubt there is any admin who speedies new articles on sight but for the fact they contain the phrase "is notable because...". In fact, that kind of obvious WP:PEACOCK is more likely to arouse doubts about notability than put them away. As I said in my article summary, demonstrating how a subject is notable makes for a better article, and one infinitely less likely to be deleted, than one that just says "so-and-so is notable, so there!" — Swpb^talk.edits 13:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think you can get community consensus to change the deletion process, then start a proposal on the village pump or one of the deletion procedure talk pages. Your current method of inserting meaningless value words in articles to save them from what you think is an unfair deletion has been rejected by community consensus, so if you think WP:PEACOCK should be ignored, you'd better start trying to build a new consensus on that too - but I can tell you now, you'll have a tough time justifying it, and you'd do better to give some thought to why that guideline makes sense. — Swpb^talk.edits 13:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you think there's a deletion cabal, and that something consensus-based can be done to fix it, then raise the issue in a broader forum. But remember that if you want to change how the community works, you have to convince people in discussions - don't just try to counter the perceived problem by introducing another problem, namely the use of peacock words, that the community already agrees is a bad thing. That's going to get you in trouble for WP:POINT. — Swpb^talk.edits 14:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HMCS Moncton.png

Thanks for uploading Image:HMCS Moncton.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Evan Kohlmann

Hi, I notice you've added some material to the Evan Kohlmann page, and it looks like you've done some research on him. I'm a bit curious about him, as he advertises himself as the great terrorist expert, but I have never seen any explanation as to where he got any real hands-on knowledge or experience in that business. It all seems to be rather academic and nebulous, and one could even get the impression he's making a living off the post-9/11 security hysteria. Did you read the two references on The Register web site, where they practically make fun of him as a for-hire "I can tell you how nasty terrorists are" witness?

Anyway, I'm wondering what your opinion of him is, and if in your research you came across anything really concrete about his knowledge and experience vis-a-vis terrorism? Thanks.

(By the way, your last talk archive link is red-linked.) --RenniePet (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit skeptical too. No, I haven't read the register links. The Penn Law School Journal was interesting. The "Talk left" link called him the "doogie hawser of terrorism".

Near as I can tell he wrote some academic papers, while an undergrad. Two of them are online -- one republished on his site; one available online from his University. I wonder how the version of his book published by Oxford University Press in 2002 differs from the version published for general readers in 2004?

I am planning to read Kohlmann's senior thesis first.

I'll give you a book report, if you like.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please.

And please take a look at these two, just to get a different perspective: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/02/professional_terror_witness/ and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/siddique_trial_sentencing/

--RenniePet (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Was just writing the Mohammed Atif Siddique article myself when I noticed that Kohlmann had been the one to label his collection of downloaded documents as being related to the potential commission of terrorism, rather than the study of it. Seeing you two discuss it, I figured you might be interested in the article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK

Khadr charged with the deaths of the two militiamen who first approached the house. Heh, OK is zarking WonderKid here, first they claim that in a house full of terrorists with AKs, he was the only one who managed to hit anybody, and not only killed Speer, but injured four/seven others, but apparently the "grenade guy" is also charged with killing the two militiamen who were shot. It's like we have a new John Rambo. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I read something about that. The Prosecution's argument is that he is as guilty as the shooters if he "shared their intent" -- or something like that. Geo Swan (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Eric G. Kaniut

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Eric G. Kaniut, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Eric G. Kaniut. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Stimson

Hi, are you interested in responding to my point about the Cully Stimson article (on the talk page)? I have some other concerns as well, but first things first. None of this emerges from any interest in defending him, by the way. cheers... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi, thanks for your message. The new page patrollers go through each new article examining for basic criteria such as nonsense, copyright violations, attack pages and non-assertion of notability; the latter being (I guess) why your were deleted. Once they're tagged for speedy deletion, an admin will delete if considered that the recommendation is valid. The "hangon" tag may buy you a little time but the whole thing is usually a pretty quick process. It's better to build an article up to a defensible level (i.e. containing a few references and at least an assertion of notability) in a personal sandbox before moving it to main article space. An admin can always retrieve a deleted page and copy it so it can be worked on & replaced later. As for your own articles, I didn't read the content that deeply, just concentrated on the process, but obviously have set out my opinion (on that basis) on ANI. Nothing is ever really deleted (at least within a short time), so although it may be inconvenient to have a nascent article deleted, it's not utterly unsalvageable, and all in all, I think the current process works reasonably well. Regards. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I take your point that new articles should be given a little time to "bed in", although it's not that difficult to write an article to defend against speedy deletion ab initio. I'm not sure if I can see the history of these userfied articles, and it may be that only the most recent has been restored. However this: "I know the rules. But if I fully complied with them, it would cut my efficiency to a fraction. So I skip steps" is unacceptable. I used to use NPwatcher (a software tool) myself, and took the job seriously, even copyediting articles to save them from deletion when it took a minimum of effort to do so. If you can give me examples of this attitude, I can advise the editors concerned and remove their access to this tool if they are not using it properly. Regards, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jeffrey D. Gordon

I have nominated Jeffrey D. Gordon, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey D. Gordon. 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. BWH76 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied at my talk page

Please make sure you read both replies (or just the second one) as the on first one I was kinda grouchy from my tiredness, not related to your question/ comment. :) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abu Mohammed

Jfire nominated Abu Mohammed for deletion. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

re

see my response on my talkpage. Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Guantanamo Articles

My comment in the RFD was that "the article seems to have copied content and images straight out of another article" - I did not say anything about copyright. There were several articles about people held at Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre that used the same text and pictures in commenting about conditions at the centre. If the article is about a person, then concentrate on that person, commentary about Guantanamo copied from another Guantanamo prisoner article is simply a waste of space, and is irrelevant to an article about the person. Copying text about "conditions at prison x" from one article about "a prisoner at x" to another about "a prisoner at x" is a duplication of material that should be avoided, the information about the prison should be in the article about the prison, not repeated in every article about a named prisoner. It was apparent when looking at the articles concerned that if the common and repeated material about "the prison" was removed from each "prisoner" article in which it occured, then in many cases the only information about "the prisoner" was "person y is a prisoner held at prison x" - and I believe that this is not sufficient to make person y a notable person within the meaning of wikipedia. Additionally, it made the pages about the prisoners concerned look as if they were being used as attack pages to attack policies relating to the prison concerned, and / or the operation of that prison. That is also not what WP is about - if you want to discuss issues and controversies about the prison then do it in an appropriate page, such as one about the prison, in a section entitled "controversy", but remember, WP articles must present a neutral viewpoint about the subject they discuss. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

BSCT

ON globalsecurity.org i got a interesting source, this briefing by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Steve Jones and Army Surgeon General and Commander U.S. Army Medical Command, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley on the BSCT. [1] ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting. Were you going to take a crack at updating the article on BSCT to incorporate this material? Or were you telling me so I could take a crack at it?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

More i'm not sure what should be added, there are a few interesting bits, this due to my interest in medical ethics i think should be added.

Q Would you explain the ethical and legal firewall between the BSCT teams and the medical records? Why does that exist? GEN. KILEY: Well, we have a DoD policy on that now that does address the privacy in health care records for detainees. Additionally, I think the feeling was, just to be sure that there was no perception that BSCT members were either also health care providers to the detainees, which would put -- it would put a BSCT member into a real bind if they were a health care provider to a detainee and at the same time consulting with interrogators. So one was one of perception, and then just administratively to keep things clean.

Q Did BSCT members ever have access to the medical records prior to that policy being put into --

GEN. KILEY: As I understand it, early on in operations in Guantanamo -- and I can't tell you for how long -- the original members had access to the medical records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 03:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Mohammed

As was stated multiple times, we're not actually sure who that is, so we can't really redirect based on instinct or hunch. Feel free to redirect it if you've got a logical page to point to. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 08:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said I can't be wrong; I'm entirely open to that possibility (WP:AGF and so forth). However, in my opinion you can't create a redirect based on "candidates" for redirection. If you'd like to redirect to one of the guys that you mentioned in the AfD, then as long as you have the evidence I'll recreate, but the impression that I got was that we knew nothing aside from him being at Guantanamo and being a trial witness. Again, if I've overlooked something feel free to tell me and I'll fix it up.

In terms of closing AfDs, we follow the consensus, and if it is a close call, apply discretion where necessary. I haven't provided explanations for obvious closes, but I'll make sure to explain my rationale for more controversial topics in the future. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 13:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You're using the dicdef of consensus. To me, and most others, it applies to the overall feeling of people participating in an AFD; I'm not talking a percentage of deletes, but I'm talking the weight of rationale for delete being higher. Specifically, as we don't know who this individual is, we cannot redirect, unless we have an article for a list of Guantanamo Bay inmates. That's my judgment. What page were you thinking of redirecting to? Still the same as on the AFD page? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dicdef = Dictionary definition. Consensus doesn't have to be established by voting, at least in my mind. In other words, you were taking my edit too literally. Second point; I don't believe those were IDONTLIKEITs, but rather sound. I agree that not every Guantanamo captive doesn't deserve his own article; not because I'm against those articles, just because being an inmate there is not automatic proof of notability. And by weight of rationale, I mean I thought the argument for deletion was stronger. Finally, a redirect to Guantanamo captives missing from the official list seems acceptable though. I meant proof that his name was actually Abu Mohammed because I was under the impression that you wanted the article recreated; my bad. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that technically, nothing is obvious, and in the future I should explain my reasoning in debated AFDs. Now, onto the next point; regardless of your past interactions with users, right now the problem was that WP:BLP1E and notability guidelines are present for this very reason; not every Guantanamo captive is notable, and so not all should have articles on them. In this case, we didn't even know this guy's name. And yes, I support a redirect now that you've explained your side of the story. Also, maybe you could create an article for all Guantamo detainees if you feel there are significant sources. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK Photo

Holy shit... Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually sent Shephard a "Thank you" eMail a few weeks ago for all her work both on the Khadr and "Paintball 18" cases, and working to keep them in the public consciousness. I sent a follow-up today asking about the source of the photo, I would assume DoD. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I did the first 16 pages of http://www.defenselink.mil/news/jul2007/Khadr%20Defense%20Motions%20for%20Delay%20&%20PHV%20(July%2011).pdf for Wikisource - visible now over at s:Author:Omar Khadr, think you could get the eMails copied over similiarly? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Lt. Colonel W"

I've read a few sources on it, hadn't seen anything explicitly stating W was Silver's CO, have a link for that? Might make it easier to track him down. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Carol J. Williams (March 14, 2008). "Pentagon accused of doctoring Guantanamo tribunal evidence". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-03-14. Lt. Cmdr. William C. Kuebler said the Army commander for the Khost region of eastern Afghanistan reported on July 28, 2002, that the person who threw a grenade that killed Sgt. 1st Class Christopher J. Speer also died in the firefight. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Geo Swan (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Military commissions, version 1.0, 2.0, 3.0

Thanks! Can you also please split Military Tribunals of Omar Khadr into three separate articles, one about each tribunal? I want to start a section on each in the main article, with a link to "see main article on Second Tribunal of Omar Khadr" for each. You seem to understand these better than I do, thanks. Finally, Muhammad Rahim, do you have an article on him somewhere I haven't seen? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this issue, more generally. Guantanamo military commission is currently a bit of a mess. And I am afraid much of that can be blamed on the original author.

IANAL, but it seems to me that the differences between the version 1.0 and version 2.0 of the commissions (both authoriized on Presidential authority) is greater than that between version 2.0 and version 3.0, the Congressionally authorized version.

In version 1.0 Brownback wasn't the sole judge, and the other commission members weren't jurors. Brownback was a voting member. There were to be six or seven commission members. And their identities were to be secret. The Commission was redesigned following Borsh's disgrace over his announcement of his plans to bury all the exculpatory evidence -- classify it so the defence never learned of it.

You probably knew this. After Borsh resigned in disgraced, he was rehired by the commission as a civilian consultant. You just can't make this stuff up. I'd like to know if he is still involved. I'd like to know what role he played in suppressing the surprise witness the prosecution revealed in December.

I'll take a closer look at Military Tribunals of Omar Khadr now. Geo Swan (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Polar class

Hi! I've replied over on my talk page regarding this issue. Cheers, Plasma east (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

question...

I left a question. Geo Swan (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot fixes double redirects (redirects that link to redirects). Bot does this task in a mindless manner following data at Special:Doubleredirects. From what I can see that is exactly what the bot did. I do not completely understand your query. -- Cat ^chi? 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Flower Class Corvette

I concur that Flower class is more appropriate than Gladiolus class. I was editing the corvette article within the same time frame that Trekphiler made the name change. Thank you for taking the initiative to revert the name change; but you may wish to discuss the issue with Trekphiler. Thewellman (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OC-1 Document

How much do I have to bribe you to upload that OC-1 document to Wikisource with all the details? It'd be a great resource to link from the Omar Khadr article - which I'm going to press to have reach GA-status, and possibly even Featured with a little more work. (I've started re-introducing the tribunals this past week). Also, did you see the great fun on Commons? Executioner accused me of being your sockpuppet, I'm insulted! ;) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Great mind think alike. I just left you a note on commons about the OC-1 document. Yes, I am going to transcribe it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Shh, just hope he doesn't notice I've replaced the poor photos with Image:Khadr receiveing AA care.PNG ;) If I had to guess, the three in irregular uniforms (also the three not wearing helmets) are the three Delta Force guys - though if he's already receiving battlefield care, it's entirely possible these aren't the same guys who entered the compound. btw, you see the details I just added to Khadr's article from today's Star? Apparently "an officer" was about to order a Private to shoot the wounded Khadr in the head to kill him, rather than bother taking him prisoner. Hurrah for liberation! Anyways, thought it was quite interesting. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Khadr photographer and brush Khadr was leaning against?

Which link on http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/300470 has this image? I think I checked all in the sidebar list and couldn't find it. Geo Swan (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded that image from the commons. I had to tell irfanview to auto-adjust the colours to make it viewable.

No. I didn't see. An officer told a private to shoot him in the head? Yipes! That is both a war crime and a clear violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Once you take a captive, you have to provide humane care. The Marines in the Kevin Site video also violated the UCMJ. If you listen closely to the audio you can hear one Marine say, "These are the guys from the other day." The Marines had taken these captives, and then abandoned them. During WW2 Wehrmacht snipers were said shoot to wound the first soldier, and then pick off each of his buddies who left cover to rescue the wounded man. They came back a few days later to finish them off, not to bring them to HQ.

IIRC the USMC has three Divisions. The Haditha Marines are in the 1st Marine Division. Ilario Pantano was in the 2nd Division, but attached to the 1st. I believe the Marines Kevin Sites was embedded with were with the 1st. Are the brigade sent to Kandahar from the 1st Division? I dunno.

So, about OC-1. Do you think "OC" could be "Officer Commanding"? Could OC-1 be Captain Silver?

OC-1's statement said several soldiers had preceded him, were in the compound. So, what were they doing when he was taking out the shooter?

I had no idea that firing a weapon would raise a blinding amount of dust -- even in the middle of the summer.

Did you notice he said he couldn't hear the Afghan's weapon firing? So, if he couldn't hear it, how does he know it coincided with the grenade throw.

Did you notice he said the shooter was also armed with a pistol? Did you notice he said he couldn't be sure the shooter wasn't firing a pistol? If he was firing a pistol would he have been able to fire the pistol, throw the grenade, with no appreciable time gap?

Earliest report -- that "Good Son" article from the National Post, from December 2002, says the troops were Green Berets. The OC-1 report says they are from the 19th Special Forces Group. You wrote, above, that they were Delta Force. Do you know the relationship between these three groups, and between the Rangers? Half a dozen competing special forces groups... Fifteen competing intelligence agencies... What a way to run a war.

Several captives said the Taliban wouldn't have consripted them because they were too young to have a beard. In Afghanistan, with no birth certificates, they said the Taliban considered someone of military age when their beard grew in. It is possible that Khadr survived, in part, because the other guys in the compound wouldn't let him fight.

Did you notice that the OC-1 statement wasn't taken until March 2004? 21 months later...

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The image ran in the newsprint, butnot in their online edition of the story, for no discernable reason.

IF OC refers to Officer Commanding, it wouldn't likely be Silvers who was identified as XO of the team - it would likely be an unnamed person who led the team...if I had to guess, possibly the same person whose name I mentioned in the eMail to you as being the seeming culprit behind the doctored AAR.

I doubt that's the brush Khadr was leaning against, since it seems to be outside of any alleyway, possibly even outside the compound altogether.

Per Khadr's fighting, notice that there were three adult bodies and three AK-47s in the alleyway - it seems unlikely that Khadr was a "full combatant" even by their standards.

Now, Hollywood has taught me that any adult male in a gunfight will give a woman/child bystander his smallest gun "just in case", so it's entirely possible that one of the other men gave him the pistol after shit started happening. It's also entirely possible that he was helping out by throwing some grenades - but at the very least, the OC-1 report makes it unlikely that Khadr was given a rifle (or if he had one, he lost it during the bombardment).

OC-1 not only didn't hear the riflefire (which you correctly point out questions his ability to tell when it was/wasn't being fired, if he was working solely off dustclouds), but he also didn't hear the grenade explode behind him - so it's possible he was suffering some hearing loss during the encounter...though he says he heard the wounded Muja "moaning" from the back of the alleyway before shooting him. Adrenaline could explain not hearing the grenade, but wouldn't explain why he couldn't hear the gunfire...presumably the others heard the gunfire? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hearing loss from the aerial bombardment? Doesn't his account say the bombardment ended ten minutes before they tried to clear the compound? Doesn't it say the SFG were over a hundred yards from the compound? Geo Swan (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Name calling?

"Ignorant" adj a)having little knowledge on a particular subject. Viz Gladiolus. Trekphiler (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Affidavit

• A detainee who lost both his legs, being held at Bagram? I know how many prisoners passed through Bagram, but this still seems like something that would've been mentioned somewhere. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know about that. I recall reading that dozens of the Guantanamo captives lost a limb. It is an aspect that is just barely covered. You come across passing references to missing limbs in the occasional transcript.

• I thought the reference to the man's death was more interesting. It would be an additional undisclosed death in custody. Mind you the guard could have been lying.

• How many captives have passed through Bagram? Thousands. It holds about 500 (or maybe it was 800) captives now. And I read the average length of detention there is about two years. Whidh would mean thousands.

• Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

non-Omar stuff

Please remember to tag {{Arabic}} onto the talk-page of all articles you create about individuals with Arabic names (Abu Mohamed would count, as a Syrian, Omar Khadr would not, as a Canadian). There are also tags you can use to denote if it's a Pashto, Urdu or similar name - then people will come along and add the Arabic transliteration of their name in brackets in the opening. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam

An editor has nominated Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you've worked hard on the articles, and even if any of them are deleted, I think it's a win-win situation. If part of the purpose is to call attention to the suspension of civil rights in the name of national security, then you've succeeded, and that's a good thing. One of the ironies of Wikipedia is that an article that's nominated for deletion is actually more likely to be read than an article that is spotted at random or by surfing. I think that, purely on policy grounds, any individual article on one of the detainees is likely to be deleted... on the other hand, each nomination is another opportunity to put the matter in the spotlight (you can go ahead and delete this message if you think it's more likely to hurt than help, I don't mind at all). In any event, keep doing what you're doing... best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do work hard on them. I have had one correspondent who have been extremely unpleasant in his accuastion that I am not complying with WP:NPOV. I told him I do my best to comply with WP:NPOV. I asked him to cite specific packages that triggered his concern. He refused to even try to do so. He claims he doesn't have to be specific about what triggers his concern, arguing, essentially, "I know it when I see it.".

Using the wikipedia for advocacy is prohibited. Doing my best to comply with WP:NPOV is part of my defense against accusations of advocacy. Can I be frank? One could interpret your comment as agreeing with that critic of mine that you think I am using the wikipedia for advocacy, but that you think it is okay.

The audience I try to write for are not those who participate in the wikipedia's deletion fora, but rather general readers, who are looking for a neutral, well-balanced coverage of these topics. Articles I start are occasionally cited by name. About twenty have been cited by The Jurist. The wikipedia it seems, is not so prestigious that authors who think it advisable to cite their sources bother to cite wikipedia articles.

I wrote a lawyer who was heroic. When the DoD spent over a year throwing up roadblocks in the way of his meeting his Guantanamo clients, he traveled to Afghanistan, at his own expense, to seek out the relatives, neighbors, and other witnesses who could confirm or refute the allegations he faced. His travel must have been extremely dangerous. He spent twenty years as a police officer, prior to becoming a lawyer. He thanked me for writing these articles. He told me had relied on the article, whenever he needed to review the allegations against his client, when he was out of the office. FWIW, this lawyer experienced something other lawyers found. He never did get to meet his clients. He does not know if they ever learned that an American attorney had volunteered and been serving as his attorney. Near as I can tell, all of the handful of lawyers who traveled to Afghanistan, when the DoD placed roadblocks to their meeting their clients in Guantanamo, got emails telling them that their clients had been released.

Most of my google searches are google news searches, or confined to the .mil or .gov domains. But, when I do general google searches, on Guantanamo, I come across blogs that talk about the Guantanamo captives that I feel sure are based on the material I contributed to the wikipedia on those captives. They sometimes reach the opposite conclusions from those I reached. Sometimes, from my personal POV, they have missed key points, got stuff wrong.

This doesn't upset me. Some of my challengers have tried to justify the suppression of valid material, written from a neutral point of view, that cites verifiable, authoritative references, on the grounds that while it may be verifiable, neutral, and referenced, it will still "leave readers with the wrong impression." We have to respect our readers intelligence and judgment. To assert that a reader who reaches a "wrong conclusion", after reading neutral, verifiable, well-referenced material is a violation of verifiability, not truth. A wikipedian

My intent is to provide neutral, referencd, encyclopedic material on important topics people want to read about it. Some of my challengers have made clear that they know they are doing a kind of POV-pushing -- trying to remove valid material, solely because they think it reflects poorly their favorite political causes, religious causes, nations, or political personalities.

I had dozens of hours of challenges from challengers who thought the neutrally written, well-referenced, material I added to Tablighi Jamaat and Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism was an attack on Islam. Their challengese were entirely contrary to policy. These challengers thought they could suppress material that, in their personal judgment, reflected poorly on Islam, simply because, again, in their personal judgment, it wasn't credible. I regard it as a very significant violation of WP:NPOV when a wikipedian who is an advocate of Islam wants to suppress well-referenced, neutrally-written material. That was a clear case of POV-pushing. As I said above, I spent dozens of hours trying to be civil, and take the concerns of these wikipedians who were admirers of the Tabligh movement seriously. They were violating policy. But they were sincere. They may have had no idea they were violating policy.

I know a small minority of my challengers know they are blatantly violating policy. About a dozen of the {{afd}}s the articles I stated on the GWOT have gone through were nominated by hot-heads who turned out to be sock-puppets.

But many of the rest of my challengers are very similar to the advocates of the Tablighi movement. They too want to suppress well-referenced, neutrally written material based not on the wikipedia's real policies, but on their personal interpretation of what material is credible.

What I have found is that, when my challengers are candid, they reveal that the reason they don't find this material "notable" is that they don't personally find the accounts that the captives were largely non-terrorists credible. What I think they don't realize is that basing editorial decsision on their personal judgment on the credibility of well-referenced sources is a form of POV-pushing. verifiability, not truth.

I assume most of my challengers have never considered that suppression of material based on their assessment of its credibility is a form of POV-pushing.

I know some people argue that Ajam is not "notable enough" to justify his own article, and that whatever coverage the wikipedia should have of Ajam's alleged ties to Al Wafa should be transplanted to the article on Al Wafa. But then, one could argue, just as strongly, that it belongs in an article about the suspicious it was claimed he named in.

I think I understand this argument, but I have concerns with it. By this reasoning there would be at least three peripheral places that had information about Ajam, and no central place.

I haven't started an article yet on the captives who faced allegations they were named on a suspicious list, when the DoD seemed to be unable to figure out their actual name. Ajam should be named in that article. That would be the third peripheral place the wikipedia had information about Ajam, with no central place.

The DoD alleged that Ajam was named on a suspicious list, but they also failed to assign him one consistent name. How significant is this? It is a judgment call. You hold someone because their name is on a suspicious list, but then you spell the guy's name different, incompatible ways? How can readers have confidence the man named in the suspicious list is the captive. There are two captive from Kuwait named Al Kandari -- Faiz Al Kandari and Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari. They both faced allegations that their "known alias" was named on what seems to be the same suspicious lists. They both face several other very similar allegations, that may very well have been identical. Readers could reach the conclusion that the DoD evidence control was so weak that they suspected both Kuwaitis named "Al Kandari" of being the same individual named Al Kandari who was a close confederate of OBL. Readers could conclude that the DoD had no real confirmation that either individual who shared a common surname was the guy name Al Kandari who was a close confederate of OBL.

That is my personal conclusion. It would be a breach of policy, of WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR to insert it in article space. About twenty percent of the Guantanamo captives are in a similar situation -- alleged to have a tie to terrorism -- because their name, name variant, or "known alias", was found on a suspicious list.

Now, if we merged some of the details we know about Ajam into these three articles, and then deleted the Ajam article, we invite a maintenance problem. There would be no central article to update, when new information about Ajam emerged. And the three separate accounts of him, buried in the three separate articles would not only be incomplete, but they would grow out of synch.

Well, thanks for your comments. Geo Swan (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Turkistani

Hi, first I would like to thank you for your good work on the Guantanamo prisoners. Then, do you know who the BBC refers to here? First I thought it was Siddeeq Ahmad Siddeeq Noor Turkistani, but by the age given, it could be Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman, or Hajiakbar Abdulghupur ("Turkestani" being a name that they have recieved later) Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not stalking, it's journalism

Turns out her name is [redacted]5, and they were her kids from a previous marriage that I was discussing. Don't know how that slipped my attention, though in fairness, my attention is solely on Omar - and I hope to do a GA on Ahmed one day. The rest of the family pales in my mind though, in importance. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

K's wife, though it looks like they're not still together, so I feel less bad for my ignorance. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. K. Right. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mohamedou Ould Slahi

Heh, Mohamedou Ould Slahi is interesting...I may work on that article, having just read his logs. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find his interrogation logs? Geo Swan (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it was his CSRT records, but he talks about Ottawa, he's obviously perfectly fluent in English, he doesn't seem overly "fundamentalist" using vulgar language like "I couldn't stand the shit..." and seems 110% cooperative. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A lot of the captives are very cooperative.

You knew that Ahmed Ressam formally recanted his denunciations of Slahi, Abu Zubaydah, and others. It is another reason not to execute KSM and the others if convicted. If they are executed how to fix the false denunciations of the possibly innocent captives they fingered to get the torture to end?

Did you see that the Star has an article about Claus, Khadr's first interrogator? Geo Swan (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the Claus story this morning, kinda smiled wondering how Claus was allowed to become an interrogator when he obviously "can't handle himself" during a media interview, I would think a "job interview" for the position of military interrogator would be similar. But it shouldn't take a PR expert to figure out that "Pfft, they're trying to make it sound like I tortured everyone" aren't really a wise statement to make, especially not after you refused immunity. Same with his "excuse" that he got upset and "emotionally involved" and that's why Dilawar died...it would've been better for him to just refuse comment. Did he never make similarly worrisome statements while in the Forces that might've made somebody rethink allowing him to be an interrogator? btw, I think Claus deserves an article if you've got free time this afternoon. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was so much as a matter of choosing who was going to become an interrogator, as everyone in that unit was going to be an interrogator, unless there was a strong reason why they shouldn't be one. Near as I can tell Lieutenant Wood had no real experience either.

I think, in the Army, you aren't allowed to say, "I don't know how to do that sir!" Once ordered, one was expected to try, even if one hasn't a clue. Evidence of hard work (usually) allows the grunt to escape punishment or censure.

Omar's affidavit says he started lying to get the interrogation to end. In retrospect this was an obvious danger. I don't think it has sunk through to those in command of JTF-GTMO that they totally fucked up. His confessions are worthless.

I haven't really read the Star article yet. Did he really admit playing a central role in Dilawar's murder? Did he really try to blame Dilawar?

Claus doesn't have an article? I could have sworn I started one two or three years ago for all of the GIs who were charged in Dilawar's murder. I had some excellent sources which have since gone 404. Geo Swan (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why God invented Archive.org and Google caches :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review of Omar Khadr

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Omar Khadr could use some constructive criticism, as I'm aiming to make it a Featured Article within a month :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you have a date for when Colby Vokey took over for Merriam as defense counsel? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Sorry. About two years ago I'd guess. I could give you some help with this tomorrow.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

GC arrived in the mail today, have to eMail Shephard since it didn't answer the one question I hoped it would. Image:Uncropped Medical Treatment of Omar Khadr.JPG, although smaller than our current version, you can see another of Zadran's militiamen in the top-right of the picture, and a bit more detail if we can find a suitable high-rez. A few other new pics at commons:Category:Omar Khadr, including Image:HighRezButNeedsWork - Khadr AA Care.jpg which is slightly larger, but lacks proper colour balance - I may play with it this afternoon. A number of new photos of his childhood, but have to confirm with ZK and Shephard that their licensing is similarly released. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Random Wiki Smile

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 06:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

GTMO

Here's a detainee that we lack an article on, and if you create one, won't face AfD Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

n/m, redirected it to Abdul Raham Houari Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Thanks, I appreciate your reply as well. And yes, likely our conception of what Wikipedia as a whole ideally should be is slightly different, therefore let's just agree to disagree on this particular case for now. --Minimaki (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Whitehorse

The transportation section of the Whitehorse, Yukon article describes fundamental transportation links, such as the airport, highways, river, etc. The paragraph I removed ([2]) is a decent story, but it talks about a specific incident that occurred. It seemed like trivia to me, which is why I removed it. I'd leave it out, but if you're attached to it, maybe create a "notable events" section later in the article. Cheers. --Teryx (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

primary and secondary sources

Hi Geo, I am happy to give my opinion but I have to preface it with three remarks:

• First, I have not had, and do not have, the time to review the details of your case in any depth.
• Second, you should know that as Wikipedia has grown we unfortunately have lost a sense of community we once had. People's time-availability change, as do their interests ... so I may go from spending weeks involved in a discussion to spending weeks involved in another discussion ... and will lose track - completely! - of the first discussion. Also, issues (like this one) that used to be discussed at one policy page may now be discussed at several and I for one do not have all of them on my watchlist. The accumulated effect of this is that no discussion will ever result in a community consensus. But this is just one part of the general and fundamental fact that Wikipedia is forever a work in process - no article is ever "finished" which means that no discussion or debate ever really ends. At best we reach provisional agreements that may lead to a stable consensus that may last for months or even years, but this consensus can easily be shattered and reversed at any time. I hope I am not patronizing you by pointing these things out. I only mean to explain why one should actually expect inconsistencies here.
• Finally, what follows is just my opinion and in many of these discussions I am on the minority side. If what I say seems especially useful to you feel free to quote it in other contexts but no one is going to take my views as authoritative, I am just offering one rationale.

Now, I think the distinction between primary and secondary sources is a very useful distinction pragmatically. In other words, the distinction is important not for classifying different "kinds" of sources but rather for guiding us in different ways of using sources. The root issue in my mind is that Wikipedia editors should not insert our onw views into articles, and we have to be especially careful not to present our own arguments about what, how, or why something happens. These arguments usually require making synthetic claims (linking something from one source to something from another source). The main thing to keep in mind is simply that we shouldn't do these things. in any event, what makes something a primary or secondary source depends on the context in which it is being used.

A source that itself makes a synthesis or argument can be considered a primary or a secondary source depending on how we use it. For example, if I were to write an article on the Vietnam War, I would want a section on causes of the war, and I might quote different historians, political scientists, etc. who have anlyzed the war - in this context, I am quoting secondary sources. These historians and political scientists, in developing their analyses of the US role in Vietnam, may draw on documents written by Westmoreland, Nixon, Giap, Kissinger, etc ... and in this context, those are primary sources.

But i could also write an article (or section of an article) on "historiography," an article analyzing different approaches to the study of the war in Vietnam. This is really an article not on the war itself, but on those scholars who have studied it. In this context, those books and articles by political scientists and historians analyzing the Vietnam war (which, above, were secondary sources) are now primary sources. This is an important distinction because there may well be more recent works by a new generation of scholars who are analyzing the work of these earlier scholars. There may be new scholars who are now making arguments - not about the war but about how scholars have explained the war. In this context, the secondary sources are books or articles that say things lie "Historians are divided as to the causes of the Vietnam war" or "Historians and poltiical scientists study the vietnam war differently."

i hope this is neither too abstract nor overwrought. let me put it another way: almost all articles present "arguments" and the arguments they present bear some relation to the topic of the article. Change the topic of the article, and you will end up relying on a different set of secondary sources.

Some people think that the main point is simply that wikipedia authors cannot insert their own arguments into articles, and as long as this point is clear we do not need to even make a distinction between primary sources and secondary sources. I think the distinction is useful because it serves as a caution and guideline to people who may not have worked on encyclopedias before. The basic point is that we should use primary sources with care, and actively look for appropriate secondary sources for any argument, explanation, interpretation, etc.

I know I have been long-winded and have not directly answered your question but I think the reasoning behind these words is more important than my personal opinion about what to call a particular document.

So i hope this helps, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we agree about NOR. The distinction is mostly important to discourage people from making undue inferences or synthesis of primary sources. As for people and bytes - I think Wikipedia is bimodal, it encourages participation of people who have LOTS of free time on their hands, and people who have very little - seldom people in-between. PS My mom took me to see 2001 when it came out; I was six or seven years old. I am still working out all the ways that experience screwed me up, although I know that some of the screw ups were in their way positive. But it was a very weird experience. I neve expected life to make sense after that. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yakub Abahanov

I have nominated Yakub Abahanov, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yakub Abahanov. 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. BWH76 (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani

I have nominated Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani (2nd nomination). 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. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

reply

WP:AGF. I am going to assume you did not intend this comment to seem like a slight.

About six months ago you expressed some very serious concerns about my motives. I spent some time on my reply, and you offered what I saw as a meaningful apology -- restoring us to mutual trust.

I am going to assume that you continue to respect my judgment, motives, and right to express my opinion.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I did not intend that at all, and simply wanted to save you the trouble of writing a refutation to my point on DRV because I would not take it up. I have reviewed the arguments prior to stating my opinion and don't intend to change it. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Opie

Are you sure the table at [[3]] is from the OK v GWB suit? The document doesn't have a header in the PDF and doesn't even identify Khadr, unless I'm missing something? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The file contains 4 dossiers.

Khadr's begins on page 28.

The Recorder Exhibit List is on page 39.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Prisoners of the Taliban

Category:Prisoners of the Taliban, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Convoy of death missing?

Is it just me or do have no article on the alleged "convoy of death"? Also, any chance you can grab me the names for your comments at Talk:Afghan Massacre - the Convoy of Death (film)? If we don't have an article on the incident itself (rather than the film), I'll create one. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a mental note and when I re-read them I'll let you know. It might take me a month or more come across them. Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Irony

The information isn't classified, and I haven't explicitly said anything anyways - but thanks to a State of the State address by the Governor of Utah in which he reference the Bronze Star citation, I was able to create the article Randy Watt for the fine Lt. Col. (his current rank, a Major back then) who led the operation in Ab Kheil.

How many irony points do you think he wins for going on record stating that a soldier in his group deserves to be a convicted felon, and that the US Army's reputation has been tarnished, by a 19thSFG soldier falsifying military records? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, checked service records, Smithee is legitimately the guy's name - just a strange coincidence. Don't think Evans or Smithee are implied to have been at Ab Kheil though, sounds like they were in a very distinct other battle. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your prompt attention.

My concern on the GFDL is that while mirrors of the wikipedia tell readers to look up the contribution history on the wikipedia itself to see who contributed what, this won't work once the wikipedia article has been deleted.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just copy over the history to the alternative website yourself, that way you'll be sure it won't go away. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Working dog in Afghanistan, wearing a bulletproof vest, clears a building.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Working dog in Afghanistan, wearing a bulletproof vest, clears a building.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 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 this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Working dog in Afghanistan, wearing a bulletproof vest, clears a building.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly ^hi! 02:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Working dog in Afghanistan, wearing a bulletproof vest, being trained-hires.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Working dog in Afghanistan, wearing a bulletproof vest, being trained-hires.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 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 this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Working dog in Afghanistan, wearing a bulletproof vest, being trained-hires.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly ^hi! 02:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list

I have nominated Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list. 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. BWH76 (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

	The Terrorism WikiProject April 2008 Newsletter
News 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was made a Featured Article Omar Khadr has an ongoing peer review as it begins the slow crawl towards Featured Article status Trials have begun this month in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Benbrika affair and 2006 Toronto terrorism case, each article could use a good vetting, and the articles on specific alleged terrorists are desperately in need of some clean-up. Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein had his case overturned by the Iraqi courts and was ordered released, although the US military says they will not release him. China announced that they had disrupted a plot targeting the 2008 Summer Olympics, while detractors claim it was fabricated. The bail hearing for Abdullah Khadr, fighting extradition to the United States, is scheduled for April 29 Former Turkish Member of Parliament Leyla Zana is sentenced to two years imprisonment for praising Abdullah Öcalan. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list needs votes on whether or not it should be kept on Wikipedia.
Archives • Discussion

If there are other Deletion arguments ongoing I have missed, please add them. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption

What is going on with this issue? I thought it was taken care of, but we must have misunderstood each other before. I was looking through the category today and it is still an issue. I could never figure what this dispute was exactly about before and I don't know why it is still a problem. Here is my issue with the situation. In the 16 monthly sub cats at Category:NPOV disputes there are 8,100 articles altogether. In Category:NPOV disputes from December 2007 there are 4,798 articles. Why are over 50% of the NPOV disputes in that one month? I am trying to figure this out and I see this image again and again. How many of the tags are related to this one dispute? I don't know; it looks around 400 uses of this one image but I imagine the number of tags in this subcat must be about a another facet of this dispute (or else some independent group of people also lost all sense perspective that same month ;) ). This needs to be taken care. I don't know what your part in this dispute is exactly (besides replacing the tranclused version with a manual version), but I imagine several parties on different sides had to of acted disruptively for this situation to exist. It is not acceptable to have a dispute involving at least 400 or maybe even 2,000 articles just sit around for six months. If is important enough to tag; it needs to be in process to being settled. If you haven't done so already you could open an RfC on the issue or start a mediation process. But I really need to see progress being made on this issue or I am going to have take this up somewhere it will likely become much messier. Even though I do not know the history here and who did what; I am certain that no one involved will benefit from a microscopic examination of that history. So please, will all of you just agree work this out and move on. I am not sure of who all is involved here but I would be happy to leave similar messages to others if you give me a list of the other disputants. Let me know if I can do anything to help this move along.--BirgitteSB 17:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am striking the above because this has never been as big a problem as I thought. I am sorry for attributing so many articles to this dispute. Two things led to my mistake 1) It very common for the detainees in GB to be sorted under "A" and therefore they fill up the first page of the category and 2)a bot was reprogrammed in Dec 07 to date several undated "pov tags" initially added over many months (years?). So I have always over estimated the number of pages affected by this dispute. However I do think it is important that tags like these link to an actual dispute. There are a good number of these tags which you replaced manually from the transclution without a dispute on the linked talk page. Where is the actual dispute over this caption located?--BirgitteSB 23:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is over the old caption, which some felt was POV because it mentioned the leg-shackles and such. As far as I know, there is no dispute over the current caption. Have you done a cookbook yet? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I have had a bad cold for nearly a week. I am just starting to feel human again today. What is the caption exactly which has consensus? I see several articles where the caption still has a POV tag in Category:NPOV disputes from December 2007.--BirgitteSB 00:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:17 Afghans, determined to not have been enemy combatants, released on April 20, 2005.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:17 Afghans, determined to not have been enemy combatants, released on April 20, 2005.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oooooklahoma...

I know you've said "Worth mentioning -- Khadr's case was considered one of the easiest to prosecute." a few times, got a source I can use for that? I'd like to include that detail in the article if possible. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

While you're digging up quotes, Shourie's "I believe every member of this family has facilitated al-Qaeda and international terrorism" quote would be appreciated. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

IIRC that comment is from the press's exploration of the rift between Colonel Davis and Brigadier Hartmann.

WRT to shourie's comment -- it is from an affidavit he wrote when ZK's laptop was seized. Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Khadr laptop seized at Toronto airport: report". CTV. Thursday March 3 2005. Retrieved 2008-04-23. The entire family is affiliated with al Qaeda and has participated in some form or another with these criminal extremist elements {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

And feel free to chip in some help with the newly formed {{GitmoCharges}} Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We should have something similar for {{Guantanamo captives habeas corpus petitions}}. Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I wanted to start making these templates (rather than categories) for Gitmo detainees, since they're a "visual" cue for readers to see other related stories. Rather than Habeas though, I'd appreciate if you'd take an hour tonight to try and create one for {{ReleasedGitmoPrisoners}} arranging their release dates by year. I was reading today how 7 of the "first 20" (the "worst of the worst") had since been released without charge - and that only 19 of their identities were known - it was apparently never clear who the 20th prisoner was. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Released? Technically, less than two dozen were released -- the 38 NLECs, and about half a dozen ECs. The rest were transferred to the custody of some other country. "Transfer" is the term used in the official correspondence. It is not freedom. There are conditions. I refer to this as "repatriation" in the articles. Realistically, the 5 Uyghurs and three other captives sent to Albania were not really released. They are still confined to their refugee camp. They have a curfew, and have to be back every night.

Fully populating a {{Transferred Guantanamo captives}}, with release dates, is doing to take a lot more than an hour.

Carol Rosenberg wrote an excellent article about the first 20 captives. Her article only identified seven of those first 20 captives by name. Unfortunately the Miami Herald doesn't allow access to its old articles for free. Maybe the article you read was a mirror of hers? I have the original URL if you want to cite it. I uploaded an image that accompanied her article to the commons. It was credited to the DoD. Yesterday I found what I believe is a higher resolution version of that image -- but some rogue freelancer is claiming credit for it. Geo Swan (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we'd want one template of those "released" and "exonerated" (probably sorted by year released, or years imprisoned), then a separate template for the many more who were repatriated (probably sorted by country). Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I started Template:Exonerated Guantanamo captives. I used the appropriate little flags you used in {{GitmoCharges}}. FWIW, one of my very first obsessed challengers admonished me for failing to spell out Guantanamo. Even though he turned out to be a horrible vandal, I always fully spell it out.

I also always avoid calling the captives "detainees". I see "detainee" as a spin-doctor term, one I won't use, unless it is a direct quote. I don't call the Skydome the Roger's Center either.

Figuring out the date of transfer would be daunting. We have no idea when most of the 201 captives transferred prior to the CSR Tribunals were transferred. Separating them by country would be easier. Geo Swan (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Could also use your help with {{CIAPrisons}}, since I admit it's not an area I know well - and I see most of the articles are yours :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, other black sites include a prison in Poland -- CBCNW just re-broadcast a documentary about him, Diego Garcia, one in Kabul, near the embassy, and Diego Garcia. But, off the top of my head, I can't remember that any specific captives have been positively identified.

Binyam Mohammed spent time in Morocco. Mahmoud Habib spent time in Egypt. Plausible deniability. These captives are said to be in the custody of those countries, and the CIA camp commandants are said to be merely advisors. That was claimed about the Salt Pit. Janis Karpinski claimed Abu Ghraib was really an Iraqi facility. high value captives lists another dozen captives of the CIA. Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Flies and Vinegar

First, a dramatization:

(curtain rises)

User A: "What do you mean? Are you a quitter or a sellout? Are you trying to hide something?"

User B: "Normally, I'd assume good faith, but you best back off, stranger."

User A: "I think someone's trying to pull the wool over your eyes, and you're going along to get along."

User B: "Yeah? Who are you to say anything?"

(curtain falls)

Do you understand by using provocative language like "you are now giving up?" and "someone or something convinced you", you've sacrificed some of the courtesy I might normally offer a stranger, whatever the context? Do you see that by framing your argument so, I might be caused to miss your most pertinent and valid critique (that "Such opaque attempts at humor are, no doubt inadvertent, lapses from compliance with WP:BITE.")? Such poor-faith wordings encourage and enable me to envision possible poor-faith motivations, instead of actually considering and evaluating feedback. BusterD (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that valid critique has caused me to grow a bit. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging Amanullah (Bagram captive 2004)

I'm responding to your request to explain the tag of neutrality or factuality by virtue of weasel words.

I found the page randomly, and was about to leave when I was struck by the odd presentation, namely that most of the article uses Amanullah himself as the source. That in itself would be enough to ask for independent third-party references. Then I stopped to consider the tenor of what was being said. At this point it became apparent that his statements, and this Wiki page, were being used for political purposes, and that some of the article's words were selected by the Wiki writer, namely you, to forward a political agenda. (I, myself, tend to agree with what appears to be your political position, that is not at issue here.)

• The Radio Free article does not read "late-night raid", it reads "nighttime raid". Furthermore, the hour of a raid of someone's home hardly makes a difference, unless you are trying to inflame fears and passions on the part of the readers.

• "Fighting foreign invaders" is redundant, either "foreigners" or "invaders" would suffice. Furthermore, Amanullah does not use any of the words "fighting", "foreign" or "invaders". This inflamatory language appears to be yours, alone. The source article explicitly says 16 prisoners, which you changed to "over a dozen". It's difficult to ascertain whether you had any intention behind this. It's not so much a weasel word -- it's difficult to know -- as a misquotation.

• The source article's statement is "forbidden to look at each other or talk". This was transliterated by you to read "prohibited from looking at one another or speaking with one another". The reason for your rewording change isn't clear, but you've modified the original meaning to be less drastic than the source article.

More seriously, the words selected for this article present a picture which is entirely one-sided, and do not give context. You've presented information of a nature which any prison inmate would have down to a fine art -- whether innocent or not. This should not be a surprise to you, and the information should not be presented to unknowledgable readers as fact. The fact that people had a grievance against him hardly means that he is innocent.

Having mentioned that I am politically sympathetic, I must say that your article has aroused suspicions that I'm being "had" by a political lobby. Now I'm more predisposed to listen to the US military side, not less.

Finally, and I don't have the source, there's an estimate that something like 1 in 10 people in American prisons are innocent of the crime they were convicted for. Who knows? Maybe it's only 1 in 100. The point is that innocent people are imprisioned. In some sense, justice did not serve them -- regardless of the specifics. However that does not imply that, therefore, no one should be in prison. That a biased party -- with no references or independent sources -- can make claims of innocence is almost dismissable.

I suggest the easiest way to resolve the Wiki tag is to quote the Radio Free Article, with no word changes.

24.130.129.125 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Comcast

Quoting original articles, with no changes, might address your concern over what you regard as my bias. But it opens the article to concerns over violating the copyright of the authors of those original articles. That is my sole justification for paraphrasing the original articles, rather than quoting them.

I aim to make these paraphrases as fair and neutral as possible. In my 30,000 edits have I ever made a lapse? I would be surprised if I had not. But, no offense, IMO these paraphrases you are concerned about don't seem to be examples of lapses. Nighttime versus late-night? Are you really suggesting choosing one word over another is a sign of bias? Geo Swan (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support human rights. My issue is with the article's approach. Although I've now made additional statements, I originally placed the tag merely to have language replaced which, I felt, wasn't supportive of the cause of human rights, or of being non-biased. I was looking for a few word changes.

Answering your question, most certainly choosing one word over another can indicate bias. That's why I tagged the article.

I recognize the problem of paraphrasing without violating copyright. When I find myself in this dilemma, however, I usually find that I have not given sufficient consideration of the larger subject. In this case...and now I'm working as I go...here are things I'd like to know about Amanullah:

* What's his background?

* Who was captured in the same raid that he was? Have any of them been found to be terrorists?

* What information did the military get from Amanullah?

And especially, and I think the most pivotal for Wiki:

* What do other, hopefully independent, sources say about Amanullah?

Lacking any of the above, this Wiki article winds up being Amanullah's personal statement about how innocent he is. Which, as I mentioned, is something every prisoner will have reduced to a finely honed performance.

24.130.129.125 (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it would be fruitful to be explicit about weasel words, although my major issue is that the article itself is not neutral.:

• "late-night" raid

• "fighting foreign invaders"

• "struggle" against Afghanistan's Soviet "occupiers".

Most of the rest of the article is nearly direct quotes. That, however, and this is a different issue, does not excuse the source itself (Amunullah) from employing weasel words, facile political assessments, etc. Quoting someone else's weasel words does not exempt a Wiki article from the need to avoid such words.

24.130.129.125 (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As a fan and believer in the necessary requirement of reducing the extra redundancy which tells the same information twice (admit it, you smiled!), I agree that "fighting foreign invaders" could be reworded. "Struggle" is a weaker case, and I admit I don't see the difference between late-night and nighttime at all (other than late-night possibly implies something like "after 10pm" whereas "nighttime" implies 9pm? Definitely don't see the POV debate though) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pentagon vandalism

Well, it took a month, but The Pentagon vandalised the Randy Watt article. See cqCounter;

IP Address  : 140.185.55.76 [ proxy-ext-76.osd.mil ] ISP  : The Pentagon Organization : The Pentagon Location  : US US, United States City  : Alexandria, VA - Latitude  : 38°79'09" North Longitude  : 77°09'47" West

• OrgName: The Pentagon
• OrgID: THEPEN
• Address: OPN-BM, Pentagon
• Address: Rm BE884
• City: Washington
• StateProv: DC
• PostalCode: 20310
• Country: US

Ah well, as I've said - I didn't include any classified information in the article - not even anything covered by a publication ban. They don't have a legal leg to stand on, if I'm simply quoting the Governor of Utah. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, if you've got a news source (or the Arar commission), definitely insert the reasoning/claim :) Right now, the "others" like Harkat, Jaballah and Almalki are seconf-tier in my mind - I edit their articles whenever information about them pops up while researching my "first-tier" articles. Basically I'd say Omar Khadr, Project O Canada and Ahmed Said Khadr are first-tier, the "Toronto 18" were second-tier and I'd hoped to rewrite that article to Featured Status, but was dissuaded by the Publication Ban - too difficult to judge whta is/isn't legal to publish, and pretty much everybody on {{CanadianTerrorism}} is also second-tier, though some of the more "daunting" ones like Arar I'm waiting and hoping somebody else clearly "adopts". After Omar Khadr hits "Featured" status, I'm going to turn half my attention to the ASK article, and then half my attention to those detained on CSIS certificates. Similar to the Khadr family, I'm sure I can convince Harkat and probably Jaballah, Charkaoui and Mahjoub (Almrei I'm less confident about) of the wisdom of releasing personal photographs to the public domain, them in Canada, them in their home nation, &c. From there, start poring into their legal hearing transcripts (since media outlets mention them chiefly in passing) and start the overhaul of their articles.

Are there are any Gitmo detainees, or similar, that you're focusing specifically on - or would "do anything" to see featured? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The captives I find most interesting would include: Abdul Matin, Abdul Razzak Hekmati, Abdullah Khan. But I hadn't been aiming to make any of them featured articles.

A more promising candidates might include the assault on Lejay, Afghanistan. Close to a dozen captives were captured in Lejay Afghanistan, on February 10 2003. Geo Swan (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tch, I only just now found the reference stating that Speer went into the compound sans helmet (pretty much confirming what I said about Image:Khadr receiveing AA care.PNG), then suffered head injuries from a grenade that a standard-issue PASGT helmet was designed to prevent. Think that'll ever make it onto a "Wear your helmet" poster? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I noticed that. I didn't look at the reference yet.

Well, that would tend to confirm they really did think that repeated aerial bombardment had killed everyone.

I doubt a post-mortem will ever be produced for the other occupants of the compound. It might show he shooter was too wounded to aim his gun. Like I wrote a month or two ago, when an enemy is firing a gun any gunfire is going to seem like "directed fire".

In hindsight Speer was very ill-advised to have gone in without his helmet. And Watt, Silver, and OC-1, with his "extensive combat experience", were ill-advised to have failed to say, "Hey Speer, put your goldarn helmet back on, before you get hurt!"

Concerning that book by the guy who attended the Khalden camp at the same time as two of Ahmed Khadr's sons... From what I read he identified the two sons as Abdurahman and Omar. I agree it was more likely to have been Abdurahman and Abdullah. But if the source gets it wrong, I think we have to go with the source. Geo Swan (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Other printed sources have actually called out Nasiri's error, and he admits in the book that he didn't know their real names, but their adopted names. I'd be loathe to further muddy the waters through anything other than a footnote detailing the error. If Speer wasn't wearing a helmet, and none of the SFG19 guys in that picture are wearing helmets, I think it's safe to say none of them were likely to be wearing their helmet. OR-included, I personally assume that "Lt. Col. W" and "OC-1" are the same - could be wrong. The OC-1 report has three redacted names, so we've got "OC-1/Lt. Col. W.", then the "deputy commander" on-scene that he reports to after arriving with Speer in the convoy, and the 82nd Airborne-cum-Ranger who accompanied them into the compound. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S.Talk:Omar_Khadr#Names.3F was sorta directed at you specifically - but I figured I'd put it on the talk page. Any idea where the name was allegedly used? I haven't come across any references, other than the fact he's referred to as "Omar Ahmed Khadr, aka..." Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Remind me -- have you come across anything Watt has written? Geo Swan (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I saw a Powerpoint presentation he assembled, related to the police force, not the military. Why? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he is a reservist, and he is in law enforcement on his day job? Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen this, nothing startling or new, just a fresh article on Silver and Layne that hasn't been seen before. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, talking about Silver just reminded me to go add an "important detail" to the OK article - that I now have references for both Silver AND Layne saying they initially believed that Morris' rifle had malfunctioned, damaging his eye - rather than a grenade neither of them saw which was later determined to be the cause of the injury, and suitable grounds for an 8mil ruling to Layne. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I hadn't seen it. I wonder if they had shaved off the beards they mentioned by July 27 2002? I don't think any of the GIs in the photos are wearing beards. I wonder whether Canadian soldiers should be encouraged to grow beards today?

I wonder if Marc Evans was one of the medics who treated Speer and Khadr?

I wonder whether this skirmish was the only firefight they experienced, during their tour? That very minor skirmish in Lejay, Helmand Province, six months later, was described as the first incident when GIs were fired upon in that region. What might only have been some potshots, that did not result in any US casualties, were seen as significant enough that they mobilized an entire battalion, and a squadron of B-52s, for several weeks. As I am sure you know Helmand is now about as dangerous for the Brits as Kandahar is for our soldiers. One has to wonder what role the reckless random bombing around Lejay played in transforming it into a hotspot of unrest.

I may have made this suggestion to you before... 1,000 USMCs arriving in Kandahar to help our troops? Its essentially the arrival of 1,000 potential Clayton Matchees. Geo Swan (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Think you could create an article on the Lejay assault and get it to GA-status in May? I'd be willing to help out, sounds interesting. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, 2003 Lejay firefight - I threw up the basics I could find, would appreciate your expertise adopting the article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Abdur Rehman (Libyan)

"Qari" is just an honorific for someone who has studied the grammatical rules of Arabic enough to read the Quran aloud during worship. I can't think of a Christian equivalent since we don't typically worry about pronunciation and such to quite the same level. "Mujahid" obviously is again just an honorific referring to the bearer's Mujahideen status. So neither of these are "alias" in any sense, they're more like adding Esquire, or The Right Honourable to your name. Really, anybody with enough Arabic understanding to read the documents found in the house should know enough to know those 'names' aren't names at all. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As per one-armed bandits...

• Edris Sabal of JI
• Radullan Sahiron of Abu Sayyaf is mentioned as having one arm in the PhilStar, same article as Abu Solaiman (reported killed January 2007) - possible confusion by the original author of your article?
  • Radullan Sahiron, a one-armed terrorist who has a P5 million bounty for his capture, was arrested at 4:30 p.m. Saturday in Zamboanga Sibugay province by law-enforcement teams led by Police Sr. Supt. Rodolfo "Boogie" Mendoza. Sahiron, alias "Kumander Putol," was allegedly behind the kidnapping of 21 Western and Asian nationals in the Sipadan tourist resort in Malaysia in April 2000, and a number of terrorist activities in Mindanao. His capture ended more than five years of police and military manhunt for the elusive bandit leader, who is in the US wanted list.[4]
    • One arm, on the US Wanted list, reward for capture...there can't be many of those. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it would seem likely that there wouldn't be that many. On the other hand, many of these guys lost limbs during the war against the Soviets, or Bosnia, or Chechnya. I wish I had made a note of where I read this, but I believe I read that close to ten percent of the Guantanamo captives had lost one or more limbs. The Pakistanis said he was an Egyptian, and your two guys are Philippinos.
      • Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure, don't take the easy route! Fine, I also find reference to this guy, no indication of nationality (or name...you'd have to do some more googling to find) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the one-armed Omar in this story was almost certainly an Afghan.
• Men missing limbs are relatively common. They probably got the wrong guy. Shrapnel wounds, or a missing limb, aren't even a reliable sign someone was a combatant. It could be due to a land mine, which strike civilians and combatants alike.
• I guess we will just have to live in mystery about this one, for now.
• Thanks for thinking about it.
• Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Abousfian Abdelrazik seems like an excellent example of why Zubaydah's testimony should just be ignored carte blanche. I'm on the fence about KSM's testimony, it's clear that some of it is true and some of it is just "admitting to any plot, no matter how ridiculous" under coercion - but I've yet to see evidence that Zubaydah's answers have ever "made the world safer", they've just led to a bunch of people being locked away on evidence usually starting and ending with "Zubaydah said". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Arabic names don't work that way

Sorry about that. I didn't know. I'm currently part of the Assessment Drive. Which is a assessment drive rating every article with the {{WIKIBIO}} tag. Sorry about the listas. I didn't know about that. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by KGV (talk • contribs) 23:30, 2008 April 29

I am sure the assessment project is a good idea. Geo Swan (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Two new images

Just want to be sure we're using the two new images correctly, the first Tribunal was held in the airport terminal building, and the current one is in the tent city? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. The new facility isn't finished yet. I believe they are still using the terminal building, and will continue to use it, in addition to the new facility, if they do charge those other 60 guys.

I noticed a lot of the charged men need to have their articles updated, cover their new charges. Geo Swan (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mohammed_Abdullah_Azam)

Yeah, I belive this guy is a fringe terrorist. After Google search, my view was supported and so I moved for a speedy deletion. Shovon (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Any chance we could collaborate, perhaps with Wikiproject:Terrorism, and get a List of people convicted under Anti-Terrorism Act in the United Kingdom created? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman Shalabi

Could you please address this why you are reverting and adding back the irrelevant links? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Addressed on Talk:Abdul Rahman Shalabi Geo Swan (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiCookie

Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While you're eating the cookie, might want to take a look at the three external links on Kurnaz here, nice fits for Wikisource, and have some information not in his article yet I believe. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Flag-editor

Hello, Geo Swan/archive ... I thought you might be interested in a few protocols and templates that I have developed since our unfortunate encounter last year ... please check out Flag templates for deletion warnings and the individual protocols (like WP:FLAG-BAND or WP:FLAG-BIO), and the other templates that I created for them, {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-editor}} ... there's a more detailed explanation in the essay, Deletion warnings ... I have gone through several attitude adjustments since our encounter, and I want to thank you for providing the impetus that led to my learning how to create Wikipedia templates. :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk) _{03:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)}

Vijayalakshmi Navaneethakrishnan

Hi, when I had tagged this article, it only had a single line. So, I had tagged it speedy. In any case, after getting feedback from the editor, I had removed the tag. Shovon (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I responded here, on respondent's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Mishal Al Madany

This was a redirect that pointed to itself. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• All that was in the history was a redirect pointing to itself. But I've recreated it as a new redirect to Musa Abed Al Wahab. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Azimullah quotation

I agree about not correcting quoted material. While editing the article, it was not apparent to me that the errors were part of a quotation. Chris the speller (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Stifle

Stifle left me a duplicate of this message he left on his talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I replied there. Geo Swan (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Gitmo

Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo and help us identify the key problems facing existing Guantanamo Bay Detainee articles, and help us resolve them. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 09:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mug shot of Guantanamo captive Mohamed al-Qahtani.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mug shot of Guantanamo captive Mohamed al-Qahtani.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward M Cotter (fireboat)

Hi. You caught me by surprise with your comment to me on commons, as i am hardly ever logged in there. I am the same name on commons and wikipedia though. Now i see you helped develop the Edward M. Cotter (fireboat) article, so i expect you have that wikipedia article on your watchlist. Anyhow, glad to help. As you know, the ship is a National Historic Landmark, and I am refining List of NHLs in NY, hoping to nominate it to Featured List soon. Hence i was continuing on my search for photos. Anyhow, thanks for noticing! cheers, doncram (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri

I have nominated Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BWH76 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abdel al-Mudhaffari

I have nominated Abdel al-Mudhaffari, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BWH76 (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Responded

Hi; just to let you know I've responded to you on my talk page. And no, I wasn't suggesting you were crazy! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

AK

The only {{fact}} tag on Abdullah Khadr belongs to you right now - I'm starting to wade through it, give it "the OK treatment", see how well I can do - you have a citation for the loss of contact? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Read through Chris Mackey's "The Interrogators" today, wanted your help with another ID - an Algerian living in Europe who generated "enormous interest from Washington" while held at Bagram, spent his early life in petty crime and drugs before meeting his future wife and having a daughter - and told the interrogators about his accomplice the Moroccan "Rau'uf/Raouf" (who is missing two fingers) who recruited Europeans from his home in France, to fight in Afghanistan. You'll notice I was able to ID al-Shirbi myself, and added some interesting details about his interrogation pre-Gitmo. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

List of alleged Al-Qaida members

Hello! I'm responding a bit late as I'm not very active on Wikipedia at the moment but I'll look into it! Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Move request

I could not locate any history as stated for this move Afghan training camps → Afghan training camp but I located the history at article Al-Qaeda training camps which I have merged into the article. Hope that this is all OK now, if not drop me a note and I will have another look. May be the talk page for Al-Qaeda training camps needs removing now the article is just a redirect. Keith D (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

re: tagging

Great that you added the references. I would much rather tag an article encouraging sources to be added, than observe someone firing off CSD templates. Improper application of speedy deletion criteria irritates me somewhat. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Administrative Review Board hearing room.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Administrative Review Board hearing room.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Rebecca S. Snyder

A tag has been placed on Rebecca S. Snyder requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bstone (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rebecca S. Snyder

I have nominated Rebecca S. Snyder, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca S. Snyder. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Bstone (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca S. Snyder AfD

Hi there - I'm the admin who removed the speedy tag from Rebecca S. Snyder for the same reason you contested it. May I suggest that, as the AfD will take a few days, you find a few third-party sources that mention this woman (I can see you have one newspaper article referenced?) perhaps outside of the context of just the case. Add these to the article, and then point it out at AfD - such sources will probably lead to it being kept. Just some advice, now I'm moving on! :) Any more questions, come to my talk page Fritzpoll (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Kohlmann

I've userfied the article, but I don't see anything there that isn't in the other article already. Also, there was no talk page for the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Gregory McMillion

A tag has been placed on Gregory McMillion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mohammad Golab Mangal

A tag has been placed on Mohammad Golab Mangal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. StewieGriffin! • Talk 16:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this can be daunting. One uninvolved editor tagged it as CSD A7 and I deleted it. Please try writing the article in your userspace, taking care to indicate the significance of the topic, then try creating it again. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, or use Show Preview. Don't complain to me! StewieGriffin! • Talk 16:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

May I please ask, what allowable fair use category are you claiming for this image? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Uy

Trying to create {{ListUyghurCaptives}}, and hoped you could confirm that Ahmed Adil and Adel Abdulhehim were the other two released to A. The NYT article wasn't clear. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, they are two of the NLEC.

I wouldn't exactly call them released. They may get to walk around downtown Tirana, during the day, but they are confined to the refugee camp at night. So, they still aren't free. I don't say they are "released". I saw they "were transferred to an Albanian refugee camp." Geo Swan (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how common it's been, if we'd be dealing with 5, 50 or more...but was thinking of a footer template for detainees released into countries they have no relation towards; like these five. How often have countries offered, or been allowed, to patriate NLECs and such from Gitmo that weren't even from their country? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, 5 Uyghurs, and three others were sent to Albania.

• Sadik Ahmad Turkistani is nominally a Uyghur, although he was born in Saudi Arabia, was repatriated to Saudi Arabia.
• Whether Abdul Rahim Muslimdost is an Afghan or Pakistani is unclear. IIRC He called himself an Afghan, but he was transferred to Pakistan, where he soon ended up in Pakistani custody. UURC He is reported to have been one of the Pakistani prisoners of the ISI the Taliban insisted be exchanged for Pakistan's ambassador to Afghanistan. If true this would erode the theory he was not affiliated with the Taliban.
• I believe there are a handful of others, two or three.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw the nationalities of the three others sent to Albania, that's what piqued my curiosity, why Albania was voluntarily taking in non-residents. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure at least one other NLEC ended up in Europe. Geo Swan (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why Albania? Probably because it is the most economically depressed, most backward country in Europe. They were bought off. Geo Swan (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Hi. I was wondering if you knew where we could obtain some population estimates on the towns and villages in Afghanistan? You seem to be resourceful. I wondered of you could help? You may also want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places and may be interested in the new geo project using fritzpoll bot which aims to start most of the towns and villages in the world. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, COuld you offer some URL possibilities? Cheers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Wade M Brown.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wade M Brown.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Ken Garber

A tag has been placed on Ken Garber requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Crusio (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To establish notability, one also needs verifiable independent sources. Something is needed to build an article on. I didn't see that here. Maybe I'm wrong, but that in itself is then a sign that the article wasn't clear enough. I see you have it now in your sandbox and trust it will get re-established in time when appropriately sourced. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: actually, it might make more sense to incorporate any interesting info on Garber in the article on Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants. Just a suggestion. --Crusio (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Elliot

The article in question has been deleted seven times. The most recent version, the one I deleted, referred to a 23-year old man from Kent, and not a reporter of any type. The article also made multple unsavory accusations against the subject, which is most of why it was deleted. There isn't any worthwhile content to userfy, certainly none about the Michael Elliot you refer to. My recommendation would be to start an article about Michael Elliot (reporter) or Michael Elliot (journalist) or some such. Hope this helps, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would if I could. Here's the history. The article was created on 2 April 2005 with, as its only content, Category:Neo-Nazis. Quickly deleted. It was then created on 22 April 2005 about a student of this name, born in 1985, who apparently was a neo-nazi. Again, speedied. An IP created the article next on 18 November 2005 with the text "i am cool.", which earned a quick speedy. On 5 August 2007, another article about the neo-nazi was posted, and rapidly speedied. On 5 December 2007, an article was posted (twice) with the content "Michael Ryan Elliott was born on a warm spring day in the year of 1981. He is the only son, and only child, of Nancy and Mike Elliott." It was speedied twice as an A7 for lack of notability. The article remained deleted until yesterday, when another neo-nazi version popped up. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the article was ever about this individual, nor was the article live during most of December 2007. If you want to use the title for this article, I have no objection, but you'll have these 16 deleted revisions floating around, if that's the case - your call. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, as a redlink just says "Write this article", and it was a redlink from when you linked it until yesterday. No worries, happy to help. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Something on CSPAN you might like to watch.

Good hello, sorry to bother you but CSPAN has a program on live this afternoon that you might be interested in. The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy is having a panel on yesterdays Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo detainee access to U.S. courts.. It is at 2:45 EDT on CSPAN 1. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I guess I just assumed C-SPAN was available up in the "True North, Strong and Free" as they regularly broadcast Canadian Parliament stuff. As an aside, the Snyder article looks sooo much better than it did when I came across the AfD. While I imagine that our politics and POV are radically different, the quality of your work product is, IMHO, top-notch. Keep up the good work. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Feedback

Thanks for your feedback. I responded to your comment on my talk page. Again, I appreciate the time you have taken. Fraud ^{talk to me} 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

American aerial bombardment

Hey Geo Swan. Good sleuthing - that was a while back! What I was doing was going carefully through Category:Military stubs and assessing them for merging, deleting, or, expansion as appropriate. When I came to that article, it immediately struck me that we had a main Afghan war article, and from the title, it appeared to be a less comprehensive and slightly POV fork of that article. I've had enough POV-warring in this place, so I was not keen to get tangled up with a fanatical person who just wished to push his view. Looking at your talk page now, it's clear you're not that kind of person, and you've done a massive amount of work on the important subject of Guantanamo detainees. But the question remains in my head - why did you not just incorporate the material into the main War in Afghanistan 2001 - article? Kind regards from Wellington, New Zealand, Buckshot06(prof) 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Several reasons.

1. Design philosophy.
   • The most powerful aspect of a wiki, like the wikipedia, is in the links. Wikis are like databases in this way. Have you ever had to plough through a raw dump of a non-functional data-base? It is theoretically possible to find the information you need. But it is acutely painful. The larger the database, and the more links it has, the more painful it is. For databases of any useful size manually reconstructing the info in the raw dump is so painful, error-prone and time-consuming it is not worth doing.
   • Wiki pages are potentially orders of magnitude more powerful than plain old world-wide-web pages for reasons that are unrecognized. Wiki links are bi-directional. One knows exactly which pages link to any particular page. This is simply not possible with a plain old world-wide-web pages.
   • But to fully exploit the power of birectional links we have to be disciplined to make sure articles remain relatively small, and only focussed on a single topic. We have to resist the urge to merge articles merely because the topics are related.
     • Let me offer an example of a merge proposal that I believe was very poorly advised. There is a sucker born every minute. To many fans of the proponents merging it seemed obvious the article should be merged with P.T. Barnum. Some proponents of merging were positive Barnum coined the phrase. Some proponents recognized that the provenance of the phrase was disputed, but were positive the article should be merged with PT Barnum anyway, because the phrase was widely attributed to Barnum.
       • I spent an afternoon with google, checking references to this famous phrase. I'd already determined, to my own satisfaction, that the popular attribution of the phrase to Barnum were mistaken. What I found as I checked the references were that about half of the places where this aphorism was used did not even mention Barnum. Of those articles that did mention Barnum, about half did say Barnum coined the phrase, and the other half, correctly, said that the phrase was widely attributed to Barnum. For what it is worth, the half that stated Barnum coined the phrase were of lower quality than the ones that correctly said the phrase was merely widely attributed to him.
       • I thought that the articles should be friendly to those who are not native speakers of English, or who are not familiar enough with American culture to have soaked up what the aphorism meant.

KingboyK deletions

I've been following him for several months and has a tendency to just delete articles willynilly. He deleted one of my articles without notice and I had to harass him for a bit to have it restored. It might be best if perhaps he should lose his admin powers because of such abuses, including not acknowledging his talk page. --Hourick (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree -- administrators should behave accountably, and be willing to admit fallibility. IMO these are more important qualities and a knowledge of all the policies -- which, of course, can always be looked up. Not everyone agrees however.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of C. Rufus Pennington III

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article C. Rufus Pennington III, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Brianyoumans (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of C. Rufus Pennington III

An article that you have been involved in editing, C. Rufus Pennington III, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Rufus Pennington III. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Brianyoumans (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ari L. Kaplan

I have nominated Ari L. Kaplan, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari L. Kaplan. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Smashville^BONK! 22:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Quadell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ITN

On 28 June, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Hozaifa Parhat, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BanyanTree 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)