User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2010-April
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
Your recent edit
Could you please check one of your recent edits. That might not belong there. IQinn (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
You are editing other pages now so could you please have a look at this link? Because you are a long term user i do not assume you are a vandal and made a mistake without noting it so could you please fix it. IQinn (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Andrew purvis's sidebar -- 'The Suspects- A Bosnian subplot.png
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/64px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
Thank you for uploading
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
NO INDEX
You promised to add the no index template to your user space pages. Specially you promised to add it to the list of pages i gave you. Unfortunately many of these pages still miss this tag after many months. I have left you further messages on your talk about this and with the request that other user could help and add the tag for you as it looks like you are to busy. You did not answer my questions and removed the post from your talk page. Could you please let me and other user add this template to the hundreds of your user pages about the controversial Guantanamo topic? IQinn (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I do not agree to you editing any pages under [[User:Geo Swan/*]] and [[User talk:Geo Swan/*]] -- with the exception of the handful of pages where I have already explicitly invited your comments.
- I add {{noindex}} to pages I don't use regularly. Eventually, all the pages will be taken care of. Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)]
- Your Guantanamo related user space article are a problem as they frequently show up high in the search results. I do not think your user space article that border propaganda should represent Wikipedia on this controversial topic. I might take this to the community if you do not show a greater effort in adding these tags. IQinn (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 20:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ronhjones (Talk) 20:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
URL Change
Yes, details at
The Bush Six
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article
- per wp:blp. This amounts to an article covering a short-lived investigation that went nowhere, which repeats negative, highly controversial and potentially defamatory information about living persons.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
File copyright problem with File:Mehdi_Muhammed_Ghezali's_passport_photo.jpg
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/64px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
Thank you for uploading
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
NOINDEX
Thank's for the work to add the NOINDEX tag to some of your user space pages. Unfortunately there are still at least hundreds of pages that do not have the tag, many of therm are about controversial topics. I have ask you if other user could add the tag to the pages in your user space when they come across of these pages. You rejected this and you suggested i should leave you a list of these pages on your talk page. I did this month ago but some of them have not be fixed until now and i frequently come across pages without tag. I still think it would be the best you would allow other editors to add these tags. The problem only looks to grow larger as you created new pages recently without adding the tag. I am going to leave a few pages now and i will continue to do so until the problem has been solved and i would notice that it would be less work for everybody if you would not reject the friendly offer of other editors to just simply add the tag when they come across these pages.
- User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees/ISN_400-499
- User:Geo_Swan/working/Boudella_el_Hajj
- User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/wiki_disagreements/Yakub_Abahanov
- User:Geo_Swan/working/Indentation_primer
- User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/list_of_lead_petitioners
- User:Geo_Swan/working/Possibly_interesting_links_to_check_later
- User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo_staff_life
- User:Geo_Swan/working/csrt_allegations
- User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Taliban Bounty list
- User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Taliban uniform
- User:Geo Swan/review/Al Qaida facilitator
IQinn (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- WRT the message on my talk page. I am sorry i do not really understand what you mean? IQinn (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The Bush Six
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RayTalk 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Be careful with edit summaries
Following this edit summary. Please have a look at this Avoiding incivility. So can avoid this in the future. IQinn (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Another one. Be careful with edit summaries Please have a look again at this Avoiding incivility. IQinn (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Another one that falls under Avoiding incivility. Please stop this. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Another one that falls under Avoiding incivility. Your edit summaries are problematic. Please have a look again at avoiding incivility. Thank you IQinn (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I request User:Iqinn to be more careful with their warnings. The diff they object to closes with a comment from User:Iqinn.
::Wikipedia is community work everybody can edit these pages. You are welcome to further improve on this issue. Best IQinn (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- The diff shows that this is an edit that User:Iqinn had themselves suggested. Geo Swan (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Out of context quote. Your edits are not the problem. Your uncivil edit summaries are. IQinn (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- User:Iqinn asserts that they are being misrepresented so often I have decided not to offer specific replies to each assertion. Instead I decided to link to a single reply on their talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am trimming this comment which I believe lapses from ) 12:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC
- I am not attacking you. I think it should be possible to speak openly if there are problems. I am sorry i do not think that my comment here was uncivil nor a personal attack. I am sorry when you felt that way but i do not see it and i never intended it. I asked you to be more careful with edit summaries in the future. Can you? Or do you doubt that this comment your comment was not uncivil? IQinn (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi
FYI - In this edit it looks like you accidentally blanked the old part of the page. I have undone that and added your comment to the bottom. Please have a look to make sure this is what you wanted. Thanks. 7 23:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Mohabat Khan v. Bush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as only secondary source refers to a different case. Should likely redirect to that case, Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Mahmud Idris v. George W. Bush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Mahmud Salem Horan Mohammed Mutlak Al Ali v. George Walker Bush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
Mamdouh Ibrahim Ahmed Habib v. George Bush
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article
- Does not appear to meet notabilityguidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Mamet v. Bush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as only secondary source refers to a different case. Should likely redirect to that case, Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Saleh Abdall Al Oshan v. George W. Bush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as only secondary source refers to a different case. Should likely redirect to that case, Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Sliti v. Bush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Sohail v. Bush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as only secondary source refers to a different case. Should likely redirect to that case, Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Sharifullah v. George W. Bush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Salim Muhood Adem v. George W. Bush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Salim Gherebi v. George Walker Bush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
Salam Abdullah Said v. George W. Bush
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
Saifullah Paracha v. George W. Bush
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Sadkhan v. Bush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Should likely redirect to Boumediene v. Bush. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
What's to discuss?
They all fail
- Different contributors range in the obligations they recognize for doing a basic web-search prior nominating an article for deletion. Some nominators skip doing any kind of web-search. Some will spend 15 seconds or 30 seconds first, on the principle that it is the topic's notability, not the current state of the article, that matters when considering when to nominate article for deletion. I spent that 30 seconds with Paracha's habeas:
date notes 2007-06-20 2007-07-05 2007-07-11 2007-07-18 2007-07-20 2007-08-11 2007-08-20 2007-09-05 2007-09-12 2007-10-09 2008-01-10 2008-02-12
- The problem with these as this is not "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. These are passing mentions (i.e. trivial coverage) in the SCOTUS blog. Significant coverage is where the entire article or a substantial portion of a large article or a whole book or a chapter in a book is devoted to that topic. Not a mere mention. I'm not saying there might not be that significant coverage, there very well may be hidden behind pay walls at various law journals/reviews. But 50 trivial mentions of a case do not make it notable. If that were the case, I'd be notable, and trust me when I say I am not. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- No offense, but I am afraid it looks like you didn't actually click on any of the links to paracha articles I supplied. I think if you did you would find that these articles do address Paracha's case in detail. Look, we are all human. We are all just volunteers, who do this work in our free time. Did I make a mistake, have a blind spot when I started these articles? Maybe.
- We need to recognize our fallibility, and be gracious when someone draws our mistakes and our blind spots to our attention. I suggest this is a lot easier for everyone involved when everyone makes an effort to discuss our concerns in a collegial manner. A serious response to a nomination for deletion can be a lot of work. As a courtesy to other contributors would you please consider not nominating article after article for deletion with a delay of just one minute between them, as you did here? When you have left two or three notices of nominations for deletion on a single good-faith contributor's talk page, within as many minutes, don't you think it might be a good idea to pause to discuss your concerns with them directly?
- How many individual habeas petitions does it make sense to have individual articles about? Fewer than I created. Maybe a lot fewer. My mistake. A blind spot. You get caught up in a certain rythym and lose sight of the forest, focussing on the individual trees.
- I was told, a year ago, that only those cases that made their way all the way to the Supreme Court merit an individual article. I don't agree with this. Others merit coverage, for various reasons. Paracha is the first habeas petition where his lawyer's launched an appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals after the prod}} tags without doing meaningful web-searches on the topics first. Geo Swan (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)]
- I was told, a year ago, that only those cases that made their way all the way to the Supreme Court merit an individual article. I don't agree with this. Others merit coverage, for various reasons. Paracha is the first habeas petition where his lawyer's launched an appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals after the
- First, yes, some people spend time searching for sources before nominating articles for deletion, and I actually do that as well. However, here, these are PRODs, and I do not always search for sources before prodding them (as in redlinks (most lawyers are not notable nor spokespeople) and pretty much nothing but primary sources. In their then state, they failed NOTE, and going from experience, court cases that have not made it to the appellate level are not notable, so why waste time for each searching for sources that likely do not exist. And I did not have the time nor absolutely any inclination to go in and clean up somebody else's problem. You see, I make sure all the articles I write pass muster, spending lots of time on theminstead (which saves people time by not having to clean up my work too much). As in, as you point out, we are all volunteers and I don't like having to clean up so much after others.
- Next, as to the template messages, you must not be familiar with many of our tools. The PRODing was done using our automated tools, thus I clicked a tab on the article and the system did the rest. As in I never visited your page at that time, and had no idea these were all written by the same editor. So, yes, my error there.
- As to Paracha, I actually did look at the first link, and I stand by my assessment. It is trivial coverage of the Paracha case. The other links you provide do provide more, enough to question if the case on its own is notable. I would however suggest higher quality sources than SCOTUSBLOG, something along the lines of peer reviewed, as the article appears to be dealing with living people. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)]
- P.S. with the header for this section, the question is very valid. As I said above, anyone (that includes you) can remove the PROD, no need to discuss it with anyone. That is one way, the other is to simply improve the article to the point where the concern is no longer valid. Again, nothing to discuss. These were not personal attacks on you, just the state of those articles in relation to our inclusion criteria. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- First, yes, some people spend time searching for sources before nominating articles for deletion, and I actually do that as well. However, here, these are PRODs, and I do not always search for sources before prodding them (as in
Deletion nomination of Talk:Icebreaker Semyon Dezhnev
![blanked page](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Edit-delete-2.svg/48px-Edit-delete-2.svg.png)
Hi Geo Swan, this is a message from an
{{bots|deny=FrescoBot}}
somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 00:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Tahir Mahmood Ashrafi
Hi, I have userfied the article to User:Geo Swan/review/Tahir Mahmood Ashrafi (I'm not sure this is the person you are looking for, but I guess it is best to leave you decide whether or not you can do something with it). Good luck! :). -- Luk talk 15:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif
Jihad Ahmed Mujstafa Diyab
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Khan v. Bush (Civil Action No. 05-cv-2466) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as there are no secondary sources, only primary sources used. Not every case is notable, and certainly not every writ is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
Could you please stop...
You just created multiple redirects like this. Could you please explain why you think they are correct. The whole thing reminds me a bit on
- There is a robot that fixes double redirects. Using #redirect [[ISN Nnn]] is convenient. The robot usually fixes them in an hour or three, and it saves me about 30 seconds per redirect.
- I am mystified as to why you would accuse me of WP:POINT. You are very reckless about accusing good faith contributors of bad faith. Geo Swan (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)]
- I did not accuse you i told you that this reminds me on WP:POINT. I have no doubt you are a good faith contributors. But also take in consideration that that came within hours after we had discussions about "dehumanizing" and another on my talk page about dehumanizing redirections.
- I did not accuse you i told you that this reminds me on
- Linking directly to the article by hand does not take more than a second more time as the ISN has been linked already to the article. I highly suggest you directly link to the article and not to the ISN, as it still leaves a record in the history and it sometimes takes more than a few hours for bots to fix this troublesome redirects and robots are not always reliable they might get not fixed for a long time. I know you are a good faith contributor and i hope you you will link directly to the articles in the future. IQinn (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- What is there to discuss? I offered you a perfectly reasonable explanation.
- See these examples:
- I copied this table from Andy Worthington's paper on hunger strikers: WP:RS. His transliterations should redirect to the articles. But we got along for four years without these redirects. So what if it takes a few hours for the robot to catch up to me? I believe letting the robot do the work is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Geo Swan (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)]
- For the fixing no i disagree it often takes more than a few hours sometimes days and sometimes never. These redirects are troublesome even they stay there only for hours. As i said it does not take more than a second to directly link to the article and i would appreciate if you could do so in the future. Writing and encyclopedia is not only about saving a few seconds. We need to be careful and responsible. I think it is a reasonable request that you do not to create more of this troublesome redirects and to link directly to the article. IQinn (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Don't you have a couple of hundred naked URLs you left to fix up?
- Let's be real here. I spent months bending over backwards not to press the idiosyncratic triggers you have identified distress you. My record shows I have worked extremely hard, and made a genuine effort, trying to parse what you might have meant from what you actually wrote.
- In return you routinely violate WP:AGFand leap to the worst possible explanation that assumes bad faith on my part -- as you did here.
- In return you routinely violate
- You continue to cast dark hints that there is something generally wrong with my contributions -- just because much of the wikipedia's coverage of the Guantanamo captives started with my contributions. In December, I pointed out to you when you became the contributor who has made the second largest number of edits to this material, and you reacted defensively -- as if I had leveled a personal attack against you.
- As I wrote above, you routinely violate WP:AGFand leap to the worst possible explanation that assumes bad faith on my part. And your defensive response to my observation in December was another instance of this. My point was that all those dark hints you made about the very large number of edits that I had made to the Guantanamo articles should then have applied with equal strength to you.
- As I wrote above, you routinely violate
- In your response to my point you asserted that there was nothing wrong with you making a large number of edits. In general I agree -- there is nothing wrong with a single contributor, or a small group of contributors, making a large number of edits to a topic or series of related topics, provided those contrbutors do their best to comply with all our policies.
- I believe my record shows I both make an extra effort to comply with all our policies, because I recognized the topics were controversial, and an extra effort to give civil meaningful responses to all civil, specific questions and challenges over my contributions.
- It is long past the point where you should have stopped your offensive practice of darkly hinting that there was something generally wrong with my body of contributions. Yet you continued to drop those dark hints on BLPN just a few days ago.
- You also suggested that I was a paid employee or contracted worker, working under someone else's direction, subverting the wikipedia's goals without regard to its policies and collective goals. This is a suggestion that, if true, would imply truly shocking bad faith and a serious conflict of interest on my part. If this suggestion were true, and were taken seriously, the WMF would permanently block me from contributing here. Your suggestion is utterly and completely off-base, and was, in my opinion, a very serious lapse from WP:NPA.
- You also suggested that I was a paid employee or contracted worker, working under someone else's direction, subverting the wikipedia's goals without regard to its policies and collective goals. This is a suggestion that, if true, would imply truly shocking bad faith and a serious conflict of interest on my part. If this suggestion were true, and were taken seriously, the WMF would permanently block me from contributing here. Your suggestion is utterly and completely off-base, and was, in my opinion, a very serious lapse from
Speedy deletion of Uighur house
Hello Geo Swan, this is a message from an
{{hangon}}
" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Iqinn. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Iqinn (talk · contribs) 06:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Wazim (terror suspect) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- From little value but problematic under WP:TERRORIST
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
AfD nomination of Abdul Haq (Uighur camp leader)
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a