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

If you are considering initiating an xfd on material I started

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abdul Wahab (detainee) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Wahab (detainee) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bat-canada.gif, 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. XLerate (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Andrew purvis's sidebar -- 'The Suspects- A Bosnian subplot.png. 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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I left what I think was a civil request on another contributor's talk page. This contributor routinely erases any note I leave on their talk page. In recent months they cut and paste my original message from their talk page to my talk page. They routinely characterize my attempts to voice my concerns as "trolling", or reasonable equivalent. They did so again here: [1], [2].

1. I am replacing their confusing cut and paste with this explanation.
2. I am going to urge them to stop the disruptive process of cutting and pasting messages I left on their talk page to my talk page, as I consider it confusing to anyone reading my talk page.
3. I am going to encourage them to actually make a good faith attempt to read messages left on their talk page.

Their brief reply follows. I believe it illustrates they didn't read the definition of "ad hominem" I brought to their attention, and will continue to misuse the term in future. Geo Swan (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using Ad hominem it simply waste our time. IQinn (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and you should stop Ad hominem and concentrate on the content. I guess it would really be the best you would agree to be mentored as the community suggest to you. It seems to be the case that you did not learn anything. IQinn (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Andrew purvis's sidebar -- 'The Suspects- A Bosnian subplot.png. 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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits another one You are edit warring and i am asking you to stop violation WP:BLP. Please note that you are violation the outcome of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan by reverting primary sources into the article that are not suitable in BLP's. You are violating Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan, WP:BLP and now you are edit warring. What is wrong with you? IQinn (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want the opinion of uninvolved third parties. I believe that my initiation of the {{puf}} discussion was a reasonable thing to do. Geo Swan (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to edit warring for the opinion of uninvolved parties and these reverts are not about the copyright status. You have reverted multiple other edits including the use of primary sources against BLP. That is troublesome. I have opened a discussion here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_Geo_Swan_continues_violation_of_BLP IQinn (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at Bensayah Belkacem this afternoon. If there is material I re-introduced with the image, that shouldn't have been re-introduced, I'll trim it. I request some patience here. Geo Swan (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT - I have "trimmed" the article of primary source materials, and left a comment on the talk page. This issue has been raised repeatedly. My suggestion would be to find secondary sources to confer notability, not primary sourced government documents. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, PUF is to be used when there's a question about whether or not an image is free or non-free. When an image is known to be non-free and it's just a question of use then the appropriate forum is WP:NFCR or WP:FFD. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are under discussion in a thread at ANI here - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, please ignore me, I see you have commented in the thread so you are aware, excuse me, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Andrew purvis's sidebar -- 'The Suspects- A Bosnian subplot.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenneth C. Waller is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth C. Waller until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tassedethe (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Corp2454.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Majed Al-Shammari has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 22:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hudson03.gif, 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. XLerate (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geo Swan. I see you have been around for a while and work a lot on Guantanamo-related topics.

I randomly came across Muieen_A_Deen_Jamal_A_Deen_Abd_Al_Fusal_Abd_Al_Sattar and it seems to me this individual, and probably some others like him in Category:People_held_at_the_Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp, don't actually meet our notability guidelines. While they have indeed been mentioned in reliable sources, there is a lack of sustained, independent, reliable coverage that would cover them as individuals, notwithstanding the release of various information by the US DOE and its coverage in some special journalistic projects. Basically, while the situation of the Guantanamo detainees is clearly notable and deserves inclusion in the wikipedia, I feel that individuals like this one don't, unless they have a special "claim to fame".

Given you've put a lot of effort into this, and that it seems from your talk page that many of your articles on related but different topics have been PRODded or AFDed in the past, I don't want to barge in uninvited and throw this article into the maw of a deletion discussion process if a similar discussion has been had before. Could you perhaps point me to an AFD discussion (or similar) where a similar article - ideally also from Category:People_held_at_the_Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp, has been kept? I don't want to waste a whole lot of time and bytes by many people only to conclude that either I misunderstand the situation, or that my read of community expectations on notability are closer to yours than to mine! Cheers, Martinp (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ehsannullah (ISN 350) in March 2003.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. We hope (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muieen A Deen Jamal A Deen Abd Al Fusal Abd Al Sattar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muieen A Deen Jamal A Deen Abd Al Fusal Abd Al Sattar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Martinp (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, apologies for the automated Twinkle notification. This is of course in continuation 2 sections above. I noticed that you did't reply but have edited the article since then, so it seemed most expedient to bring this up for discussion at AFD. Martinp (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you stop working on BLP's at all until you agree to be mentored. The outcome of your RFC/U suggest that. I do not doubt your good faith but unfortunately you are creating a mess and it has become disruptive to the community to clean up after you. I would not mind if we do not talk about BLP's but we are talking about BLP's and we are taking these issues very serious.

• Stop violating BLP by by adding primary source "crap" to BLP's as you have just done. The "image" violates BLP WP:MUG as it shows the individual in a false or disparaging light. Obviously not suitable to present the individual of a biography in that way. You clearly know about these issues and you have been warned by a large number of members of our community. Do listen to the community. IQinn (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I need to point out that someone using the Iqinn ID on commons uploaded five wikileaked images: File:Khirullah Khairkhwa.jpg, File:Hamidullah.jpg, File:Tolfiq Nassar Ahmed al Bihani.jpg, File:Abdallah Aiza al Matrafi.jpg, File:Abu Zubaydah.jpg. Were you aware of this? Was that you? Geo Swan (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this your justification for violating BLP by adding this crap "image" to a BLP? IQinn (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ahmed Siddiqu, son of Aafia Siddiqui, in 2008.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Yasser Hamdi in Afghanistan.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wafah Dufour is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wafah Dufour until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

I don't think you started this one, but you've contributed to it a couple of times. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in on the discussion. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the refs, too! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

What her article really needs is a couple of nice free photos. One of the references I came across said that her beauty was balanced by her being an uncontrollable chain-smoker. Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good. Unfortunately, the Google free image search comes up empty, as I'm sure you noticed. Oh well, it will probably happen eventually. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Could_you_please_explain.... Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been working on an article on Joshua Dratel and had gotten it to be a decent little stub. But then when I went to create it I discovered that it had been previously AFD'd and deleted from both versions of his name. Once I saw that I decided my stub needed to be a little better than decent so I've been working on it. Somebody just pointed out to me that you're working on an article on Joshua Dratel also, so I figured I should contact you.

Obviously I think the guy is notable and don't agree with the Delete arguments set out at the AFD. Still, I'm going to take those arguments seriously, so I want any new Joshua Dratel article to refute those arguments beyond a shadow of a doubt. I don't think the draft you've written quite does that as clearly as I like. (I'm not saying you haven't put a ton of work into it, you clearly have.) It's just that the flavor of the AFD made me expect any new article to encounter some good faith but strongly felt opposition.

Could you please hold off just a little bit on putting it in article main space to give me alittle more time to follow some leads? Right now I'm following up on some research ideas. Or at least let me know when it goes live so I'm ready to help out.

Or, if you are comfortable with it, could I collaborate on it while it's in your use space to help get it ready for rough seas ahead? Cloveapple (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded via email. Geo Swan (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the Afghan politician article. (I am deliberately not mentioning his name.) I just hope you can avoid an edit war with the deletionists. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you might want to move it to WQA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geo, I recently ran across a photo you uploaded to commons and added it to the Charles Swift article. I wasn't able to access the source webpage pdf, and was wondering if you still had access to it or could send to me any further info about the circumstances surrounding the press conference. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the link on the page to reflect the current location. The occasion was Salim Hamdan's conviction. This article is in two parts -- unfortunately the page numbers in most issues of the wire often don't match the actual page numbers, which might make it more difficult for you to find the second part.

Here are some other DoD documents that mention Swift's role... Geo Swan (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shanita Simmons (2008-02-12). "Military court hears arguments in Hamdan case". JTF Guantanamo Public Affairs. Retrieved 2011-07-19. During a press conference, Swift said the prosecution's failure to produce particular documents prevents them from properly filing motions and adequately preparing their case. However, Army Col. Larry Morris, chief prosecutor, said the defense [sic] has done what the law requires, which is to provide all requested evidence that is material and relevant to the defense's case.
• Shanita Simmons (2008-02-18). "Court hears arguments in Hamdan case". The Wire (JTF-GTMO). Retrieved 2011-07-19. "The prosecution seemed to have no record of the interrogation SOP's in place during Hamdan's detainment…they have no record of detainee treatment…no record of guards' instructions…no records of what camp Hamdan was in during that period," Charles Swift, lead defense attorney, said.
• Rich Federico. "Seeking Justice at Guantanamo Bay" (PDF). Jag Mag. Retrieved 2011-07-19. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled on a historic challenge filed by retired judge advocate, LCDR Charlie Swift, on behalf of a Yemeni detainee alleged to have been the driver for Osama bin Laden. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court held that the military commissions created by President Bush lacked power to proceed as they violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.
• Vaugh Larsen (2008-08-15). "The verdict is in". JTF-GTMO. Retrieved 2011-07-19. Hamdan, who was shaken following the split verdict last Wednesday, was in notably higher spirits Thursday. He shared an emotional hug with retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Swift, who began representing Hamdan in 2002.
• Kathleen T. Rhem (2006-03-28). "Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Legality of Military Commissions". American Forces Press Service. Retrieved 2011-07-19. Hamdan's case has taken a circuitous route to the Supreme Court. He first appeared in court in a military commission pre-trial hearing at Guantanamo Bay in August 2004. That hearing ended with the presiding officer granting a continuance for the defense while senior officials in the commissions process ruled on a request by Hamdan's military attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, to have several panel members removed for cause.
• Kathleen T. Rhem (2004-08-25). "First Military Commission Hearing Ends in Continuance for Defense". American Forces Press Service. Retrieved 2011-07-19. In this first hearing, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Swift, the government-appointed attorney for Yemeni national Salim Ahmed Hamdan, challenged the appointment of five officials to the panel that will decide on his client's guilt or innocence.

I answered there. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geo Swan, a user AlimNaz is editing wiki articles in an unorganized and in appropriate manner. Many of his edits are erroneous or awry. For example, recently in the article Jan Muhammad Khan his edits were more or less like a news service. I notified this one the talk page but much is to be desired about the rest of his edits. This is evident from the brawling nature on his talk page. Whatever his intentions, Please advise him. I hope something good comes out of this. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is already in a style, it is contingent on editors to follow that style, besides you made input mistakes on every one of the templates in It's a Wonderful Life. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I've have been asked this question numerous times and the simple answer is that the Wiki templates (all of them!!) contain errors that are very difficult to correct, including use of second and et al. authors, full titling, multiple and first editions, location, date location. I have tried to get template designers to address the programming faults, to no avail. I can correct all of these programming errors, but it often makes more sense and less time to start out with the correct Harvard Citation or Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide employed in a "scratch cataloguing" format. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloguing that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloguing is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record form an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication. (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."

Further- the style employed for note citation is the Harvard Citation style which one other Wiki editor eons ago had begun to use and even though it works well with the MLA style, it is a separate system. Basically, the first reference is completely cited and all following references are provided in a brief format: "Author(s) Date, page." Sorry, I got off on a tangent in my earlier response, you merely wanted to know what style was being employed. FYI, my other problem is that I have a background stemming from 35+ years as a librarian and due my ancient teachings, I had gone through rigorous training for cataloguing and reference works. As you can visualize, I am an old fossil but I have in my last few years, been able to adopt newer technology. My last assignment in a high school library was eye-opening as my library technician and I simply downloaded MARC (Machine-Accessible Record Control) information from library collections where the questionable book was already cataloged. What a joy, simply copy someone else's cataloguing and paste it into our data base. To me that is like the "template" system but it isn't always the best way. I did have to resort at times to doing my own cataloguing to correct errors. As an author and editor, I have an interest in the mundane and arcane world of cataloguing and referencing.

As you may already determine, there are a number of suggested styles that are in place on Wikipedia. Many of these are based on the use of templates for editing and here is where the issue may actually be of discussion. The template guides have a number of variances that do not match the actual APA (American Psychological Association) style, which is one of the style guides used for referencing research. The APA guide was developed at a University level as a shorter, simpler guideline and intended for psychology, education, and other social sciences. University professors invariably assigned this guide to newcomers because it was considered easier to master and had the basic information required for a citation. However, the Wikipedia templates that were created by editors such as yourself or other editors used the APA style, or some slight variations of it.

I do understand the use of templates, it is merely that the catalog information that is in the "widely-used" template is based on a system that is not best adapted for research papers. I understand that many editors may prefer a template because it looks simple to use but as I indicated before; for me, it is just as fast to "scratch catalog" and if you know how to use the MLA style, it actually provides more information for the user. There have been some efforts to rewrite the templates but I find it easier to do without them and still give a source citation. Again, that's me... where I have been involved in major articles- see Amelia Earhart, North American P-51 Mustang and the Avrocar (aircraft), you will find that I have properly referenced sources of information (just not with templates). As to other's suggestion of having the template designers revise their work, I can't see challenging the whole wiki editing group when most people rely on the templates. My rewriting them to a more commonly used style would take a whole lot of explanation, as I have attempted to do for you. It's hard to summarize 30 years worth of cataloging experience for a non-librarian and make it relevant. If I didn't care what system I used, why would I change? would be the obvious reply. BTW, if you ask me the time, I will tell you how to design a clock. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You moved Takfir wal-Hijra to Jama'at al-Muslimin.

I'd like to read the discussion that preceded this renaming. Could you please tell me where to look for it?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was none. Since Jama'at al-Muslimin was crushed and Shukri Mustafa executed, I thought there was enough of a distinction between Jama'at al-Muslimin and any succeeding groups calling themselves Takfir wal-Hijra to have separate articles (if for no other reason than Jama'at al-Muslimin objected to being called Takfir wal-Hijra). I originally only created a redirect from Takfir wal-Hijra to Jama'at al-Muslimin, but then I found a lot of sources on Takfir wal-Hijra from old versions of the article, so I created a separate article. Do you object to the dividing of the article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's conduct this discussion on Talk:Jama'at al-Muslimin. Geo Swan (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt want to get the sonny and cher toys AFD off topic but your comment was brilliant I am still laughing.RafikiSykes (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it. Geo Swan (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u for your help to keep the article. You can also used the site in the external link to add citations. Bye --79.13.80.73 (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Bgwhite's talk page.
Message added 23:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Bgwhite (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mohammad Dawood (Bagram detainee) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. IQinn (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article El Banna v. Bush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Not a single secondary source that covers this case.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. IQinn (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your user space staff showing up in the main space categories. Please fix. IQinn (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]