User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2010-August

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

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Articles for deletion nomination of Libyan training camp

I have nominated Libyan training camp, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan training camp. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas § 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:GuantanamoDetentionCamps

Yes templates do include categories. However the guideline very specifically recommends against doing this for article entries. The problem that bring this to light is when editors add the category to pages that don't belong in the category. So the fix is to removed the category entry from the template and then in cases where the articles don't include the category already, to include it so we don't lose the link to the category. Also there are many cases with the templates are over categorizing by adding articles to extra categories that are already covered by other categories already listed in the article. So in the end, it is probably not wise to use templates to add categories for articles except is well planned specific cases. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll bear it in mind. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Riad (al-Qaeda host)

The article Riad (al-Qaeda host) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

passing mentions in guantanamo documents don't establish notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Prezbo (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Lt Cmdr Rebecca C. Dickinson, in her civilian clothes.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lt Cmdr Rebecca C. Dickinson, in her civilian clothes.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fences&Windows 11:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User space drafts

You might stop with removing these templates. They are necessary specially in cases of highly controversial topics like Guantanamo. IQinn (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

On July 26 I advised you that I raised this issue, and was informed that {{userspace draft}} were redundant, when the userspace page already had a __NOINDEX__ on it.

You removed that good faith message, and several other good faith messages, apparently without even reading them. Please understand that you cannot continue to behave unaccountably, as if your opinions are the only ones that matter. Geo Swan (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No that is not true. You please understand that you can not keep working against the community. You do not own your user space articles. These tags are not redundant and necessary specially in highly controversial areas like Guantanamo. IQinn (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WRT {{userspace draft}} -- it is shocking that you erase good faith messages from your talk page. It is shocking that, when you had the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) drawn to your attention, you STILL didn't bother reading that discussion with sufficient care to properly understand it.

Listen, you have a lot of energy, and you could be a much more effective contributor, if only you owned up to your imperfect command of English. You get into conflicts all the time, with all kinds of contributors, where the main cause of the conflict is your imperfect command of English.

This is an instance where you are creating a lot of unpleasant, unnecessary drama, and where, if you read the definitive answer, then clearly your imperfect command of English failed you once again.

I shouldn't have to do this, but I excerpted the key passage.

...{{userspace draft}} ... provides a visual note in addition to noindexing; if you don't care about the box, then yes, its redundant.

I urge you to regard this as a cautionary incident. I urge you to recognize you need to be more humble, and accept how often your command of English fails you. Geo Swan (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It is shocking that you write uncivil posts full of false allegations. I did read all these messages and discussions. I do remove messages from my talk page that are done or uncivil. Your uncivil accusations here are just shocking.

I confirm i read and fully understand these discussions i am fluent in at least six languages including English. Your accusations are uncivil, wrong and disruptive.

You are misinterpreting the discussion and the result of the discussion at the Village pump and you are quoting here out of context. Be careful with that.

We need both templates here as your numerous biased user space drafts concern highly controversial topics. Better save than sorry. The noindex tag is no guarantee that nobody arrives at these drafts. IQinn (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am striking the preceding comment. Commenter routinely reacts to good faith feedback as if they were being personally attacked. I have yet to see them acknowledge making a mistake.

I sought input from another contributor, who had been misled by the tag, and who offered the view: "The {{Userspace draft}} template is not suitable for these notes for a number of reasons... The tag adds the page to a category schema, requiring attention from editors (and automated processes) to review for encyclopedic release. This is a waste or resource and is likely to lead to inappropriate changes to working pages that might be using different schema from article space."

I am going to accept this as the last word. Geo Swan (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing uncivil in this comment. That needs to be discussed. IQinn (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Ashley-kirilow.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ashley-kirilow.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

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 created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP1E

If you would like to argue for the elimination of BLP1E then the appropriate place to do so would be the talk page of WP:BLP or at the Village Pump. However, it's still currently a valid policy. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your opinion on where it is worth raising my concerns over blp1e.
• In my opinion you have a responsibility to explain why you claim Kirilow is a blp1e. Geo Swan (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious if you've read the policy. Also, see the now-concluded AfD discussion for the BIO. According to the same policy, there's no reason you couldn't add this story to the Facebook article (or a related sub-article), or to an article about Social Media scams. It just doesn't deserve its own article as a BLP. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Riad (al-Qaeda host)

Could you please explain. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ashley-kirilow.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ashley-kirilow.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Civil conversations

I am a bit surprised and confused on your way of communications. You replying to a bunch of discussions on your talk page. Including false allegations against me but only minutes later you are archiving these discussion without giving me the opportunity to reply or to answer your questions. Really i do not think that this is an appropriate way to solve disputes. How shall we proceed now? IQinn (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I archive the discussions on my talk page. You, on the other hand, erase good faith comments good faith contributors leave on your talk page, describing those good faith contributor's efforts as "trolls" or "harrassment".

Are you now genuinely interested in resolving disputes?

If you are genuinely interested in resolving disputes I have some general suggestions for you:

1. I suggest you immediately curtail your routine escalation to stating or implying those who have questions or concerns over your edits or comments are acting in bad faith.
2. I suggest you have to accept that your edits are just as subject to review as mine are, as Jimbo Wales's contributions are, or those of any other contributor. It does not matter whether questions and concerns I pose about your edits in article space concern edits to material originally contributed by someone else, or whether my concerns are about edits you made to material I originally contributed, so long as my concerns are civil, and substantive, you have an obligation to try to offer with a civil and substantive response.
3. I suggest you should show you are willing to own up and acknowledge when you made mistakes. You are not infallible. No one is.

I have recently returned to my concern that you have an imperfect command of English, and that this imperfect command of English is a problem for you, a problem for the project as a whole, and a problem for good faith contributors who work on the same articles as you do. I do not do this to be offensive. In spite of the countless personal attacks you have leveled against me I have continued to do my best to understand when you may be expressing real concerns.

I honestly believe that it is very much in your interest to understand the trail of hurt feelings you leave. It is not just me. You insult and attack all kinds of contributors, including contributors you are interacting with for the first time. The administrator who closed the {{afd}} you kept open for a record-breaking 56 days? You were way out of line to imply abuse of authority on his part.

I honestly believe that your activities on the wikipedia would be more pleasant, for you, if you had a more realistic assessment of your ability to understand when you are being attacked. Your record shows you routinely address contributors who pose civil questions or concerns over your activities, as if you were counter-attacking them, and were responding in kind to an initial attack. I have probably read more of your comments than any other wikipedian. I now believe that in almost all the cases where you addressed other contributors as if you had been attacked you had not been attacked. I now honestly believe that you, however, really do think you are being attacked. If you honestly think you are under constant attack here, wouldn't your experience here be more pleasant if you realized you were not under constant attack?

I should point out to you, however, wikipolicy does not encourage us to "respond in kind" to personal attacks. Even on those occasions when an uninvolved third party confirms for you that you were the target of a personal attack, you are not supposed to respond in kind.

Now, if there are specific concerns that you wanted to address, that I have archived -- please feel free to bring them up again, provided you can do so in a civil, specific and policy-based manner. Geo Swan (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's wrong i have never erased good faith comments good faith contributors leave on my talk page. Though i delete comments that are done, that come are made by "trolls" or are simply "uncivil". That's is perfectly fine with our policies and they all can be found in the history.

As said i am fluent in six languages including English and there is no lack of understanding that claim is ridiculous.

Your trail of baseless accusations and incivility in this post are endless and it would be a waste of time to reply to all of them. I think you are one of the most controversial editors on Wikipedia and you have fought with dozens of editors over the years most of them simply left because it is just no fun to work with somebody who shows strong signs of ownership. So you wrote most of the 1000 articles in the Guantanamo section entirely yourself over years. I guess you simply got used to think there is only your POV. I still hope you can change and show greater efforts to accept that other people change and revamp article that you once started. Please work towards consensus in content issues i think than these articles could have a chance improve. Thanks for the offer. Yes i will start new discussions here about topics that are still open. I have already started one. Cheers! IQinn (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am striking the comment above. Anyone who checks the revision history of User talk:Iqinn can clearly see they have erased dozens of good faith comments with the edit summary "troll" of reasonable equivalent.

As to the assertion that I have driven other contributor from the project -- I believe my record shows I have bent over backwards to offer civil, serious, meaningful, substantive, policy-based responses to good faith, civil, serious expressions of concern over my contributions. I also, sometimes, offer civil, serious responses to concerns that were expressed rudely or incoherently. Anyone who checks Iqinn's responses to my comments will see it littered with dozens of angry denunciations that I am "filibustering". Basically, I believe, this claim that I drove other contributors away, is a complaint that I drove them away by offering sweet, reasonable, policy-based arguments, until my correspondents ran out of counter-arguments.

1. Some of my correspondents convince me I made a mistake. When that happens I acknowledge that, and work to correct that mistake.
2. Some of my correspondents are convinced by my arguments, and acknowledge that.
3. I believe some of my correspondents are convinced by my arguments, but don't feel like acknowledging that, and silently quit the discussion.
4. I believe some of my correspondents are not convinced by my arguments, but have run out of arguments, and leave the discussion feeling angry. Some of my correspondents say as much, (paraphrasing) "I don't care how many clever sounding arguments you offer, I still KNOW you are wrong, but I don't have the time to explain to you why you are wrong."
5. Unfortunately, a small subgroup of those you are not convinced by my arguments, and have run out of good faith counter-arguments, bear a permanent grudge against me, or even resort to vandalism, and other bad faith activities.

I am very sorry to report that while I know Iqinn has some general objections to my contributions I honestly don't think they ever tried to make a good faith attempt to discuss their concerns with me. They have certainly never shown the slightest interest in understanding or compromising. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me that you run out of good faith counter-arguments and instead starts striking out good faith contributers messages. That is surely not the right way to go. Your accusation against me are baseless. IQinn (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please only leave serious comments on my page. Your record is very clear. Please don't try to deny it. Geo Swan (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You continue to accuse me that my User name would be used by multiple individual. This is false i confirm again your allegation is absolute wrong and you do not provide any valid diffs for your allegations. I would like to ask you to provide me here with concrete examples based on real diffs that would support your allegations. Allegations without providing credible evidence are personal attacks. So diffs please. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Map of Samuel herans expedition

Hi, I just saw you are a map maker. Could you make a map of Samuel Hearnes expedition? This is an image which shows his route:

Best regards --Carl Steinbeißer (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been an amateur mapmaker. I used a free online mapmaking tool. The site that hosted that tool for the last 6 years or so stopped hosting it about two months ago. And, until I learn to use a new tool, I won't be making any maps.

There are some other contributors who made some much better maps than mine. But I think there maps were more work for them. Some of my maps only took me a few minutes, because the tool did all the work. You might find that they will give you some good map-making advice though.

Good luck! Geo Swan (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. A german map maker already helped me. Best. --Carl Steinbeißer (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Thank you. IQinn (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)