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

Thank you for uploading File:Photo of Guantanamo captive Issa Khan in 2002.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 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. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop your edit war and instead answer the outstanding discussions and questions. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Philip Bloom, 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/Philip Bloom. 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. Ash (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is under discussion and you have been warned multiple times. Please stop your edit war over many pages like here IQinn (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also reverted here and on other pages. These topics are under discussion but you refuse to discuss and to answer questions. IQinn (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iqinn, please do not add obnoxious templates to userpages - it is bordering on incivility - especially given the frequency with which you accuse long-standing editors of "edit warring" with you whenever they undo a removal you made; even if it is the first time and they have left you polite notes on talk pages. In almost five years of editing, I have never seen a suggestion of Geo_Swan being involved in an edit war - and I highly doubt he has gotten into 11 edit wars with you in the last three weeks. More likely, you're trying to appeal to some misplaced sense of authority to command him to fall in line with your thinking and hoping that spurious warnings will cow him. I'd advise against that course of action, and encourage you to work with editors you consider in opposition to you to improve the project, rather than simply try and force them to allow you to shape it as you see fit. There are millions of us here, you're just one more drop in the ocean. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherurcij, we know you and Geo Swan have closely worked together in the past and i understand you want to defend him. But it does not matter how long somebody already edit Wikipedia. He is refusing to discuss the topics and he is refusing to answer questions. Instead he is reverting on multiple pages. That is exactly what we call edit war and the warning template is exactly the right one for this. I have ask so often in a more friendly way. IQinn (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a page he has reverted more than three times in a 24-hour period? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has been blocked for edit warring himself and may have read the warning template you should know that this is not the only definition for an edit war. He has reverted similar edits on many pages in recent days that are under discussion. And he has been told and warned about that. At the same time he is refusing to answer questions and to discuss these issues and keeps reverting. Exactly the definition for edit warring. You may re-read the policies that forbids edit warring generally and that tells you that editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR. IQinn (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently adding links that are controversial and under discussion: here, here, here, here. You know that these kind of links are under discussion. I must say i found it very disruptive that you do not discuss the topic here and instead adds more of these links instead - that's disruptive.

Also i must say that i find your comment to this talk page not helpful.

I just wanted to let you know that. IQinn (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iqinn, I urge you to stop making links to regular wikipedia pages look like diffs -- it is confusing and gives the appearance of bad faith

I say it gives the appearance of bad faith, or could give the appearance of bad faith, because a lot of experienced wikipedia contributors feel they can trust that when other wikipedia contributors imply they have diffs, and supply links that look like diffs, those diffs do in fact substantiate their claims. You write about things you have written elsewhere that imply you have diffs, and supply links that look like diffs -- which aren't diffs. This isn't just confusing -- it is likely to make people less familiar with you than I am think that you intended to deceive your readers into thinking you could supply those diffs.

I think you didn't intend to deceive anyone. I think that, in spite of eight months of participation here, and close to 10,000 edits, you somehow missed learning the different ways we link to external references, to diffs, and to regular wikipedia pages. I think you honestly don't realize the appearance of bad faith your freqent use things that you look like diffs could give.

Iqinn, you are thin-skinned. You take offense quickly. The previous three paragraphs may have made you angry. I urge you to set aside that anger, because it is not just me -- I can't help noticing that your communication with many, perhaps even most, of your wikipedia correspondents ends up acrimonious. I honestly think that if you follow the advice I am about to give you it will help curb the tendency for your correspondence to end up acrimonious.

The particular link you used was:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asim_Thahit_Abdullah_Al_Khalaqi#Comment your comment]

This should really have been a regular wikilink

[[Talk:Asim_Thahit_Abdullah_Al_Khalaqi#Comment]]

That renders as Talk:Asim_Thahit_Abdullah_Al_Khalaqi#Comment.

• Note: two nested brackets.
• Note: the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ prefix is removed.

From the context you meant to put http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asim_Thahit_Abdullah_Al_Khalaqi&diff=337480324&oldid=337479855 inside the single brackets to get your comment.

Iqinn, I encourage you to conform to the conventions on how experienced wikipedia contributor signal that they have diffs, and only use the wording that implies you are supplying diffs when you really are supplying diffs. If you are merely supplying a regular wikilink, or a link to a subheading within a wikipedia pages, I encourage you to make that a regular wikilink.

I repeat that I honestly believe this step will help you with your communication with all your wikipedia correspondents, not just with me.

I repeat that I honestly believe your intention was not deceitful.

Please understand that, although, intellectually, I believe your intent was not deceitful, nevertheless my first response to discovering that what looked like a diff, wasn't a diff is the same kind of annoyance I think you can expect from all your experienced correspondents. We all have a limited store of good will that we can expend when we try to assume good faith. Please don't cause me to expend my limited store of good faith by not bothering to conform to our conventions, when it would be trivial for you to do so.

FWIW, I remember your recent comment that I thought I was a know-it-all. FWIW, I think most people would agree that comment was a clear lapse from WP:NPA. I did not give you this advice to belittle you, or otherwise act like a know-it-all. I honestly believe that informing you of easily avoidable triggers will make your communication with all your corrspondents go more smoothly. Geo Swan (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon Geo Swan but i think one or to brackets do not make the big difference and there are perfect diffs to show what i wanted to show to you. These links bring you exactly to the intended section. I will put it here again and you might argue about the content of my post instead of arguing about the person or minor form issue. The links bring you exactly to the right place and to suggest it would be bad faith on my side to use one bracket instead of two is by best... Really i was always and will be always open for advise from other editors but your message here with this extensive heading bold passages and extensive name calling (what is uncivil) looks by best not helpful for me and i might not speculate about the real reason for that. You are more than welcome to address the content of my message:

You are currently adding links that are controversial and under discussion: here, here, here, here. You know that these kind of links are under discussion here: User_talk:Geo_Swan#Could_you_please_explain... links are under discussion as you know. I must say i found it very disruptive that you do not discuss the topic in this discussion and instead adds more of these links instead - that's disruptive.

Also i must say that i find Talk:Asim_Thahit_Abdullah_Al_Khalaqi#Comment to this talk page not helpful.

I just wanted to let you know that. IQinn (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Qassim al Rimi.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. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple names for this individual... Geo Swan (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ali_Abd_al-Rahman_al-Faqasi_al-Ghamdi.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found out that you made good amount of contribs to Tablighi Jamaat. I've been working on this article since some time. I just wanted to make a friendly request for article assessment. I will appreciate if you can comment on the quality of current article and any possible areas of improvement. Few lines here, may be. Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 17:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up that the New York Times may soon require a subscription again.

I assume/hope that the old links will at least continue to show the article's title, as it used to, but I thought you might want to keep your eyes open for NYT URLs that may need to be expanded.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop the relinking like here? I am going to suggest to merge the article Guantanamo hunger strikes that you have written and that is not established yet into Hunger strike. IQinn (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? And why are you making this suggestion? Geo Swan (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunger strike article has already a Guantanamo section. Why do we need another article that will be most likely POV as there are not enough editors to work on?

For the re-linking you may have noticed by now that i have only reverted instances in articles where a link to hunger strike is the better choice in the context of the given information. I had a look at each instance and i did not revert when a link to the new page that you have created is the better choice. A clear edit summary was given.

Please assume WP:GOODFAITH and leave enough time for replies. IQinn (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've just stomped on you foot.[1] I looked around for this article just last week, probably right before you created it, and only briefly again this morning -- probably the accent mark kept me from finding it, and it wasn't linked to from hunger strike AFAICT which had a lot of poorly sourced info on this already. I leave the resulting mess in your capable hands though! -- Kendrick7^talk 11:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Guantanamo spelling makes more sense and seems to be the trend around here. I had originally just C&P'd from an offsite ref and was sticking with their spelling. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article James Hayes (US soldier) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

BLP1E. Fundamentally negative, not notable.

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. henrik•talk 15:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dustin Berg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Interesting story, but no real significance.

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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He admitted to killing another living soul. Seems notable enough to me! -- Kendrick7^talk 06:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Spencer Gaines has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ok, a soldier who beat a drug test. There are a lot of people, even not in the military, that beat drug tests on a daily basis. Merge this information with articles about drug testing, since that is more about what this article is about.

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. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kevin D Myricks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

BLP1E. Fundamentally negative, not notable.

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. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Kevin D Myricks, 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/Kevin D Myricks. 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. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geo Swan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 0 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Andrew Purvis - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Louise Christian - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. George Wolfe (CPA) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content at the time of deletion was:

Abdul Majeed Khan was born in Toru, Mardan District in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1940. Abdul Majeed Khan was an advocate by profession and was a famous name in Mardan District bar. He was also a famous name in the nationalist party which is now called AWAMI NATIONAL PARTY and he was the president of ANP of Mardan District. But later he left party because of unnecessary interferences of Azam Khan Hoti who was the brother in law of party,s leader Abdul Wali Khan but all the time Abdul majeed khan was respected by all other nationalist and other political leaders this why he was welcome by an old nationalist leader Afzal Khan lala to his party named pukhtunkhwa qami party. Abdul Majeed Khan had also great respect in his village Toru,his villagers called him a statue of a real Pukhtun. Abdul Majeed Khan died in Toru in 2003 and buried in his village Toru. May his soul rest in peace

TexasAndroid (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Dustin Berg, 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/Dustin Berg. 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 10:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Fadi Ahmad requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Paul_012 ^(talk) 11:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fadi Ahmad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Questionable claim of notability - no mention of significance other than being on a detainee list with 644 other names.

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. Paul_012 ^(talk) 11:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rama (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GS when working on article in user space please dont add them to categories instead place a : infront of catergory. This can then be removed when the article is moved to mainspace. Gnangarra 01:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. Please interpret any instance when I have failed to do so as an inadvertent lapse on my part.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geo. I don't mean to come around here being condescending, but you seem to have quite upset User:Bigtimepeace, although I've tried to smooth it out a little. So my big thought in reading your convo with BTP was that you might want to generalize more, and that when you want to use a generalized "you-plural" and not, as you said, put words into anyone's mouth, use the plural form "y'all" and individual editors are far less likely to take personal offense. Just my rambling idea, mind you. As a Texan I find this word essential to conveying my thoughts sometimes. You have been the victim of a tireless prod campaign lately, but that's not BTP's fault in particular. Try, in any case, not to make things personal as nothing good comes of it! -- Kendrick7^talk 02:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up.

Sorry for the delay in responding. I started a reply soon after your note, it grew long, possibly rambling, and my browser crashed. That may be a blessing, because I think I recall writing, something like: "in the interests of not fanning any flames I probably should not point out" -- followed by some broad hints of what I wasn't going to point out.

I see four quadrants in how people comply with our civility policies and conventions:

1. There are those individuals who seem thick-skinned, who seem to sail over all but the most serious lapses in civility without harm, and never respond in kind;
2. There are individuals who also seem thick-skinned, who seem oblivious to lapses directed their way, but who also, regrettably, generate a steady stream of problematic comments themselves;
3. There are thin-skinned individuals who are very sensitive to perceived slights, who nevertheless are oblivious to the wounds they themselves deliver;
4. Finally, there are thin-skinned individuals, who are troubled by incivility directed towards them, who nevertheless manage to refrain from responding in kind.

I am a thin-skinned person. I see myself as one of those in the fourth group -- a thin-skinned person who, nonetheless, generally manages to avoid responding in kind. As an exercise I do my best to respond as if I were in the first group, those who sail over minor incivilities, without responding in kind.

I re-read what BTP wrote, and what I wrote, and I honestly think I did a reasonably good job at avoiding responding in kind. In particular BTP took a quick escalation to mockery and sarcasm -- to which I think I avoided responding in kind.

I'll tell you a funny phenomenon. There are sexist comments I used to get, which I no longer get. My actual first name is George, not Geo. Geo is a nickname, and I guess some people found it gender ambiguous. I used to get some aggressive vandals, who, when cogent reasoning failed, would try to talk down to me using gender-based insults, assuming that anyone as tactful as I was must be female. I didn't consciously choose to be more "butch". But I no longer get gender based insults from vandals and hot-heads.

WRT to the horde of {{prod}} and {{afd}} notices. My writing on controversial topics has made my contributions, and me personally, a target for an inordinate share of abuse. Some of my challengers are willing to engage in collegial discussions. And some of them have good points for me to learn from. Unfortunately, other challengers prove unable or unwilling to really discuss their concerns, claim their points are "obvious", etc.. A minority of my challengers have proven willing to totally violate all the wikipedia's policies to push their POV. Half a dozen or so of my rudest and most persistent challengers turned out to be sock-puppets, and have been permanently blocked.

Anyhow, thanks for trying to be a peace-maker.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK. I myself, even though I expect to be on your side in regards to preservationist issues, wholly regard sarcasm and ridicule to be among my top rhetorical weapons (I am, after all, a Bostonian). Frankly, you need to be willing to incite the mobile vulgar to get half of anything done around here, and pick up a few cheerleaders for your side of things. What we do here isn't pretty. There used to be an essay, one of our early ones, called WP:GROWAPAIR, which certain pussywillows got removed. But look, we're in a War, against those who think knowledge is only for some, and those who believe knowledge is the human right of all. Come to my side and kick some <explative deleted>! -- Kendrick7^talk 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A certain amount of mockery has a place. But, when I am not emotionally engaged, it is not one of my top tools, for various reasons -- including one I mentioned in the essay I am working on, User:Geo Swan/on apologies. A couple of decades ago, I allowed myself to be aggressive with some correspondents who seemed to disagree with me, when I thought my limited experience, or one or two courses, meant I knew better than they did on the topic under discussion. I found it very embarrassing the handful of times when it turned out that (1) I was dead wrong; and (2) my correspondent was a bona fide expert -- a professor in that field, or someone with decades of experience in that field, or both. I looked back at other instances, when I had also been full of confidence that I was right, but had confined my responses to tactfully phrased questions -- only to find that my correspondent did know what they were talking about, and I didn't. I found those instances a shattering relief -- as my attempts to be tactful to them had saved me a huge embarrassment. My attempts to be tactful had hidden my hubris and over-confidence. And, when it turned out my over-confidence was wildly out of place it was hidden from anyone else. I found I had little trouble acknowledging the other guy was right, or made good points, when I hadn't put my over-confidence on record through the use of misplaced sarcasm.

More recently I hope that those who disagree with me will nevertheless try to enter into a genuine discussion with me. Genuine discussions, where one party actually changes their position, are quite rare in our deletion discussions. It does happen sometimes. It happens more often on talk pages, but it is still rare there. One of my favorite correspondents is a guy who I disagree with over a lot of issues. But I respect that he is intellectually honest. He does his best to acknowledge when I have made a good point. And I do my best to acknowledge when he has made a good point. During our correspondence he has made many good points, for which I have been grateful. I have other correspondents who have been intellectually honest, and prepared to really engage in genuine discussions, where neither one of us has changed our position (yet). But I honor them too. You may have noticed there are people who seem to show up at {{afd}}s solely because it is an article I originally started, who won't honestly engage in a dialogue, will misquote policies, will characterize essays as policies, will mischaracterize the arguments they disagree with, will use personal attacks.

It seems to me that the problem with using mockery and sarcasm, unless one already has a pretty strong bond of trust and liking with someone, is that once it has been let out of the bag you can more or less kiss goodbye to any chance that either you or your correspondent can admit a mistake. Well, some correspondents are hopeless about admitting mistakes, or even about avoiding cheap rhetorical tricks if they think they can get away with it. Even with them I think there are arguments in favor of not responding in kind. The benefit of taking the high road is that even if one loses that particular argument one hasn't damaged one's own credibility. If I respond in kind casual observers may only notice a pair of problematic arguers, and fail to notice I was provoked. Worse, they might be more practiced at this, and they might have left rude provocations that wouldn't be apparent to a casual reader -- only to me. In that case the casual observer sees just one problematic arguer -- me. Geo Swan (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This story may interest you...--kelapstick (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was interesting. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geo. Tx for your recent addition to Awlaki. I wonder, looking at it, if its in quite the right place, though, as I don't see how it relates to the header of that section. Perhaps it needs to be moved? Also, the reference to mistreatment by the Americans while in custody might bear amplification if we are to keep it, as there is no ref to him ever having been in U.S. custody. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Icebreaker Hindenburg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable ship; it sank; big whoop

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. Orange Mike | Talk 02:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Icebreaker_Araon_on_her_maiden_voyage,_off_Cape_Burks,_Antarctica.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Ashara guest house, 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/Ashara guest house. 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. Prezbo (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your recent creation of USNS Fisher (T-AKR-301) and would request that before you create any additional ship articles to please thoroughly read Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines because your articles on ships are sorely lacking in their quality and all of them require extensive clean-up by an established wikipedian who edits these topics which will take lots of time. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Waterboarding in the 21st century. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterboarding in the 21st century (2nd nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alina Balaican. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo, 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/Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo. 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. IQinn (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done as requested. Sorry to keep you waiting! - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a notable scandal so an article on the entire program would be much more suitable then only a slight mention on the Judy Sgro article - the individuals failed WP:N. As for your draft, I see there are lots of sources on the program so maybe you can extend the overview/history on the program in general before moving it to mainspace with maybe sections on the impact on the politicians, if there were investigations, etc (note I don't know a lot of stuff on this issue though). Not sure if we need that much text in the footnote/reference section but the small touchups can be made later. Aside from more details/sources on the lower sections of the article, it is notable enough for its page right away.--JForget 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All three images are totally different. You asked me two months ago, but I was on break. Maxim_(talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Photo of Guantanamo captive Issa Khan in 2002.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To collapse the template -- the edit you just reverted -- is a compromise between user Epeefleche and me. Please do not start an edit war. The collapsing of the template is not a controversial edit and you have not addressed this topic in any way. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. IQinn (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Abdulaziz Saleh Sultan Sinan Al Dossary. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulaziz Saleh Sultan Sinan Al Dossary. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Edward L. Richmond Jr., 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/Edward L. Richmond Jr.. 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

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

I've just double checked and there wasn't a talk page with the article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsigned "rough work" to articles talk pages that border misleading propaganda. You have been ask before. This is disruptive and unnecessary. Thank you IQinn (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check one of your recent edits. That might not belong there. IQinn (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

fixed, thanks Geo Swan (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Andrew purvis's sidebar -- 'The Suspects- A Bosnian subplot.png. 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 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. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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}} tags to the pages in my user space, as I use pages in my notes that don't have them. I also occassionally devote half an hour to adding {{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 20:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, details at WP:AWB. Authorisation is needed but is readily given. You just need to craft a suitable regular expression or search and replace, find a away of identifying the relevant pages and you are pretty much there. Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The article The Bush Six has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

per WP:NOT#NEWS, wp:npov, 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 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. Ray^Talk 03:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Mehdi_Muhammed_Ghezali's_passport_photo.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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have nominated The Bush Six, 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/The Bush Six. 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. Ray^Talk 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Another one. Be careful with edit summaries Please have a look again at this Avoiding incivility. IQinn (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one that falls under Avoiding incivility. Please stop this. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]