Ah, I see I wrote to you about adding guys to this category already.
I continue to think adding any Guantanamo captive to this category, who haven't faced credible charges of terrorism, is a huge mistake. If you check the allegations against them, you will see most of the Guantanamo captives who have been
added to this category didn't even face allegations of terrorism during their Combatant Status Review Tribunal.
I'll meet you part way. I'll remove this category from hald the inappropriately placed articles, and let you remove the other half. Agreed?
It just caught my eye that "a CSIS operative named only as "Mike" gave testimony at Trial of Mahmoud Jaballah, December 17, 2001, Page 330. Check out http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/021202se.pdf and search for "Khadr", you'll see his testimony/statement. Thought it might be worth two minutes of looking-into, though I'm not going to add it to {{DCSIS}} with quite so little information sadly. Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 07:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, Toronto Star article mentions a CSIS agent testifying in Toronto against Jaballah, could be the same guy...though here he's referred to as J.P. and portrayed as seemingly ignorant about Islamic extremism...admitted his experience came from reading The Economist, about 35 with 12 years in counter-terrorism. No indication if it's the same guy or not. Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 07:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, this transcript seems to be the CSIS agent proving his inexperience as related in the earlier article, but here he is "Dave", not "J.P."...but after referring to himself as a "Middle Eastern expert", he says that Iran is Arabian (not Persian), can't give an estimate of the population of Egypt or name any North African countries. Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 08:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for spamming your talk page last night, sometimes I just seem to use it as a sandbox Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 04:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking over the bit you added about the deep water port and I'm sure the references say six groups in the consortium but it doesn't seem to identify which six. In the FP trading desk link it mentions Rio Tinto Plc and BHP Billition Plc as members. It also mentions Zinifex Limited, Sabina Silver Corp and
Tahera Diamond but it's unclear if they are members of the consortium. In the star.com link it appears that Kitikmeot Corp want to build the port with public/private financing. Mentioned there are Sabina Silver, Zinifex Ltd, Rio Tinto Inc, Miramar Mining, Dundee Precious Metals, BHP Billiton and DeBeers. But it's still not clear who is part of the consortium and what they are willing to fund. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk) 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah. I am glad you found it interesting. I was going to give you a headsup, but you found my references first. Shall we cut the table back to those firms mentioned in both articles? I thought about writing to [email protected] -- an email address my web search threw up. The Geo coords for the community of Bathurst Inlet place it about half way down the inlet. I wonder if the inlet starts having too many navigational hazards south of there.
I created some other maps. I think the existing maps were uploaded in error. If they were "all rights reserved", we can't distribute them under a free liscence.
I cam across the link to the Bathurst Inlet story when I was looking for more information about Harper's most recent announcement on Arctic patrol frigates, and an Arctic deep-water port. Iqaluit no longer has it sewn up. I agree with the commentators who feel the CCG should continue to play a big role in asserting sovereignty. Have you read any of the articles the Canadian American Strategic Review, and SFU, has published about Arctic issues? If not you should take a look.
Thanks for the map. It might be useful to contact Sabina or one of the others like BHP or Rio Tinto. All of the ones mentioned will benefit from the road and port but it would be interesting to see who is the main backers. I'll have to check out the articles you mention as I haven't read them yet. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk) 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if the tag seemed to be too quick. On one hand, I am fully aware of my tendency to be a little quick on the trigger with tagging new articles that I run across while patrolling the new page list. On the other, Wikipedia has yet to devise a "list of articles that have passed a suitable grace period", so the other list is all I have to go on if I'm going to be doing this sort of thing at all.
I'm not psychic--I can only base an assessment of an article on what's there, not on what's going to be there, and I can't predict whether or not a "first draft" is going to be improved at all, except that from my experience, more often than not they don't get improved. The solution to this is to not post an article before it is complete--that's what the "show preview" button and
subpages
are for.
Furthermore, that first version of the article seemed sufficiently incoherent to me that the debate in my mind wasn't whether to prod it or leave it alone, but whether to prod it or speedy-tag it as nonsense. I'm still dubious as to whether the subject of Gitmo uniforms merits a whole article by itself, but now that the article has been improved substantially I'm not going to press the issue by sending it to
AfD
--after Sherurcij cleaned it up and added to it, I dropped it from my watchlist and moved on to other things.
Anyway, I hope you better understand where I'm coming from here. Our goal here is the same--making this a better encyclopedia. Thanks, take care, and here's hoping that the whole issue soon ceases to be a current event and becomes merely a matter of history. --Finngalltalk 16:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for the civil reply.
That no one has gone to the trouble of providing a tool for listing articles that were newly created some reasonable period of time ago was no excuse for the other nominators to have chosen to ignore the recommendation of {{
csd
}} to allow a grace peiod
My number one compute had to be retired early. I am using my number two computer, a 1 gigahertz machine, with limited memory. The policy recommends nominators accommodate people like me who have to save often, because of limited resources. I am drawing your attention to this aspect of the policy because your recommendation is not only counter-policy, but it is not really an option for me, and, I believe, many others.
I think compliance with the policy requires new page patrolers like you to make accommodations for editors like me, and not vice versa.
Cordially, Geo Swan 17:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list
I'm reluctant to put this up for deletion, but to me it is irredeemably original research by synthesis. I understand you disagree, and there is little point in each of us repeating our positions. Could the material be merged somewhere? Tom HarrisonTalk 18:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re Dilawar
I'm not challenging that, but I think it's a bit over the top to assume their motivation, and put it in a disambguation page with no reference. The phrase "for kicks" seems too unencyclopedic (I'd even say too informal) for this topic. The current wording gets the point without being sensational (the point here being primarily to tell different people with the same name apart) while the article specifies the details in a more formal tone. Most encyclopedia articles should have a certain formality to them; if they're about a victim of a violent crime, then even more so. -Steve Sanbeg 15:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guantanamo captive's uniforms
Hi Geo Swan. You are off to such a great start on the article
Guantanamo captive's uniforms that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee(Talk) 21:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
Guantanamo captive's uniforms, 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
This is it.
I haven't had time to look through it yet but I see that their second PDF is a direct response to the Denbeauxs.
-- Randy2063 22:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over the weekend I'm in Ottawa, so would some time around noon (or at least before 2pm...) any weekday next week work for you? I'll also draw your attention to
Zaynab Khadr has signed up on Wikipedia - a good chance to try and draw her out to talk some more about what is/isn't valid information. (She's engaged in some minor "whitewashing" on her father's wiki article, though talk page discussion is clearing it up, imho) Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 17:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Tuesday at noon sounds fine. I'd be interested in finding out who that "important Arab" is, now that you mention it. Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 04:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just confirming that I still intend to be there tomorrow - probably be nursing back an iced cappucino. Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 00:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HH RfC
Any chance you could provide some diffs for the RfC? It would be helpful to have links to the comments you mention. –
Good grief! Then there's also his responses to your request for civility on his own talk page, which were also quite uncivil. Thanks for adding the link to the timeline of your interactions with him. It's quite clear that his habit of incivility goes far beyond what we've experienced with the
Battle of Washita River article. --Yksin 20:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
Yes, I realized after the fact I should not have added to the closed discussion. I'd certainly join you in suggesting undeletion. How is it done? How do you propose to frame it? See my talk page. WiccaWeb 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your approach, it makes a lot of sense, I think it has the best possibility of success. It can clearly be shown that the correct process wasn't followed, so if the Admins put aside personal views, we can probably get it undeleted. That said, the controversial nature of the subject will probably result in deletion requests down the road... WiccaWeb 06:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I agree that it was a copyright violation. I would have removed it from the history if possible but since the letter was there from the very first edit I couldn't do that. Garion96(talk) 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A statement by the copyright holder that the material is in the public domain or released under the GFDL. Or that it is a work of the united states federal government. Neither of those seems to be the case. I admit this is a bit theoretical but legally Abdul Aziz holds the copyright and all text posted on Wikipedia must be public domain or released under the GFDL.
That the letter was "almost certainly meant for to be made public" does not mean the letter is in the "public domain". Those two are not the same. Mind you, I think a small portion of the letter could be posted in the article under fair use. But it will have to pass the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The excerpt which was used is too long to pass those criteria. Garion96(talk) 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Preston (military lawyer)
I'll repeat, it was not my intention to trigger the feeling you were being attacked.
You aren't disputing that Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion says: "Always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows administrators to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period."
Are your disputing that your initial justifications fell short of being reasoned arguments.
You aren't challenging whether I am entitled to ask you to try harder to use reasoned arguments? You are just concerned that the way I phrased my request wasn't tactful enough?
So, I am open to suggestions as to how you would have preferred to have me request more reasoned arguments.
Hello, thanks alot for your understanding on the Category talk:Afghan politicians. I really appreciate your understanding. Can you also please help me out with another category? Can you please vote and comment here and here. I would really appreciate your input here. Thanks alot. --Behnam 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abdul Aziz Saad Al Khaldi
Any idea whose brother
Abdul Aziz Saad Al Khaldi is? Let me know anytime about ZK - again, preferably weekends of weekdays around noon-ish Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 01:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I don't know about Al Khaldi's brother.
I told her we could meet her in her neighbourhood. I'll let you know when I hear back.