Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:46, 14 March 2008

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)

AfD nomination of James W. Harrison Jr.

Article that you have been involved in editing, James W. Harrison Jr. and Wilberto Sabalu, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James W. Harrison Jr. (they are nominated together). Thank you. Jon513 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

While your articles were well written, I found nothing particularly notable about either James W. Harrison Jr. or the other soldier who was killed. While their deaths were tragic, Misplaced Pages is not a memorial; and neither did anything notable enough per WP:BIO to warrant separate articles about each in my opinion. Mh29255 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Al Qaida facilitator

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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages'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 02:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Guantanamo Articles

Thank you for taking quite some time to once again 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, this piece of information about him fails .

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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages'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 _{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 _{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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages: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. 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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages'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)

Misplaced Pages: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 04:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually sent Shepard 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 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 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 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 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)