This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

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

Just wanted to give you a heads up since you created the article that some new user, as their very first action on Wikipedia, has created an AFD on Lynika Strozier. Deletion discussion is here. It's dumb, and its already turning into a SNOW keep but I wanted to notify you since they didn't have the courtesy to do so. --Krelnik (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have eventually found a good reason for the AfD: the nominator wanted to give the article an accolade and a keep response at AfD was the easiest way of achieving it. Thincat (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Kroll (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Heather Cerveny has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:1E that attracted some coverage but no long-term significance.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Boleyn (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heather Cerveny 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/Heather Cerveny until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you changing perfectly working direct links to Seminci to links to a redirect to the same article[1], or worse, to redlinks[2]? Your edit summary "disambiguation" does not actually indicate what you are doing here. Please revert all these changes. (And before you ask: no, I'm not hounding you, this change appeared in an article I created). Fram (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carteret Fire Department 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/Carteret Fire Department until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Tinton5 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carteret Fire Department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Voice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Geo Swan (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was just curious if your discussion on using {{anchor}}s that started at the Classical Irish redirect discussion was continued anywhere else. -2pou (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just wanted to share a couple things with you that involve the use of wikilinks to sections. There is a database report located at Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken section anchors that is populated every month with new links that go to sections or anchors that have been broken by a recent edit. From this, there is at least one bot, Dexbot, that works to repair these links, as do individual editors out there. It's not anywhere close to the dab fix setup, but there are people that work these maintenance tasks. Just thought I'd point that out if you were not aware. And by all means, if you have recommendations, try posting to the Talk page of that report. All the best, 2pou (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your connection with the subject of the page is, or why you are so determined that the article should abandon any attempt at applying any critical reading of sources. Maybe you are simply so naive that you believe that journalists only ever write with an absolute dedication to the truth: maybe you are just so caught up in ownership of the page that you started that you cannot stand any alternative to your interpretation being proposed.

But I've tried to apply some encyclopaedic standard and you have proved determined not to allow it. I really couldn't be bothered banging my head on the brick wall of your close-mindedness any more. Have your poorly fact checked article that will get very few views just as crappy as you want it. Kevin McE (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I replied on User_talk:Kevin_McE#An offer. Geo Swan (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oliver Henry 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/Oliver Henry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This disambiguation page was compliant with Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic when a disambiguation page lists only one existing article by that name, and I think it never should have been nominated for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muhammad Zahab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The National.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect USama Bin Laden. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 28#USama Bin Laden until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Soumya-8974, who made this nomination, also made #Nomination of Oliver Henry for deletion, a day or two ago. Neither one of the nominations offered a policy based rationale for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like more than ten years. (wikt:of old.) I saw you around a lot back then. I've had a couple of renames (I may have mentioned my outing concerns leading to renaming.) since then, and you either forgot me or never knew of me though I was around. I had a lot of admiration for you then. Now, I'm just puzzled. Either you have changed or I never really knew you. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never new about the problems you reference. Perhaps I never really knew you at all. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Salem Ahmed Hadi 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/Salem Ahmed Hadi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--JBL (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Milton Leitenberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Praeger.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Geo Swan (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits on Kathryn B. H. Clancy for two reasons. First (and most important) the New York Times article does not say what you claim it says. They do not list Clancy as one of "seven founding directors of the MeTooStem organization who resigned over concerns managing director BethAnn McLaughlin was not managing the organization responsibly". There isn't even such a list in the article. What the article does say is "By May 2019, seven members had resigned, according to a report in BuzzFeed at the time". The later mention of Clancy does not list her as a "founding director", but as a someone who was "also involved". Did you perhaps use the wrong reference?

The second reason I removed it was that even if what you added was correct, it does not belong in such a short biography of a scientist. This is important as regards McLaughlin, but trivial to the career of Clancy. I urge you not to try adding this to any other biographies. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MY NAME IS MILTON LEITENBERG AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. SOME MONTHS AGO YOU ESTABLISHED A WIKIPEDIA PAGE ABOUT ME WHICH A UNIVERSITY COLLEAGUE NOTICED ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO AND INFORMED ME ABOUT. WHEN I LOOKED AT IT I SAW THAT THE BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS WERE VERY MIXED UP. I AM OLDER AND NOT VERY ADEPT ON THE COMPUTER, SO I ASKED ONE OF OUR YOUNGER POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWS TO TAKE THE BIOGRAPHY FOR ME THAT WAS ON OUR UNIVERSITY WEB SITE AND TO USE THAT TO REPLACE THE ONE THAT YOU INITIALLY COMPOSED. I ALSO ASKED HIM TO USE THE LIST OF PUBLICATIONS THAT THE UNIVERSITY WEBSITE HAD, AND LAST, TO REMOVE SOME RECENT SPANISH LANGUAGE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES THAT YOU HAD PLACED AS REFERENCES. SEVERAL DAYS LATER HE INFORMED ME THAT YOU HAD TAKEN OUT THE ACCURATE BIOGRAPHY OF ME AND REINSERTED THE ONE THAT YOU HAD COMPOSED. I WOULD RATHER THAT THOSE NEWSPAPER REFERENCES WERE NOT THERE, BUT THAT IS MUCH LESS IMPORTANT. WE WILL TRY AND RETURN THE CORRECT BIOGRAPHY, AND CAN I PLEASE BEG YOU NOT -- NOT -- TO REMOVE THAT AGAIN. SINCE YOU HAVE GONE TO THE TROUBLE OF MAKING A WIKIPEDIA PAGE FOR ME, FOR WHICH I THANK YOU, I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD WANT IT TO CARRY AN INNACURATE BIOGRAPHY. THANK YOU MILTON LEITENBERG 71.126.164.156 (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Greetings!

Of course we want the article about you to be accurate - accurate and neutrally written

We have a policy on conflicts of interest - Conflict of interest. It might seem counter-intuitive to you, but we generally discourage individuals from making edits to articles about themselves, or their friends. Cutting and pasting the biography about you from your University's website would not meet our standards, for several reasons, including:

• The copyright status of the University's official biography of you would be unclear. If a University publicist wrote it the copyright would probably belong to the University, or the publicist, not to you. If you wrote that University biography yourself, the copyright might still belong to the University - depending on your contract with them. We don't use material that has not been licensed so it can be freely re-used.
• Articles about individuals require independent reliable sources. Your colleague removed all the references.
• Information you or your colleague knows to be true, but which we cannot substantiate from an independent reliable source, doesn't belong in your article.

If you are Milton Leitenberg, and have specific concerns about the article, I am happy to help, providing I can do so while complying with our policies and conventions. Would you please consider emailing permissions-commonswikimedia.org, the email address of a committee of trusted volunteers, to confirm you are the real Milton Leitenberg? It might surprise you but there are terrible vandals who get their kicks causing problems on the wikipedia. Identity theft is one of their tools. Confirming your identity reassures me that you are not one of those terrible vandals.

Once you have confirmed your identity perhaps you can explain why you think we should not use the references you mentioned?

Do you know Jeffrey H. Norwitz, who used to be a Professor at the Naval War College and the Coast Guard Academy? I started an article on him, and he requested its removal. There was considerable discussion as to whether we should honor his request. We do have a tradition of agreeing to remove articles when we decide an individual is of marginal notability. We ended up deciding Norwitz was not of marginal notability, so we kept it.

If you consider yourself of marginal notability, and you want the article to be deleted, I will help you navigate that process. But please write to permissions-commonswikimedia.org to confirm your identity, first.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, his identity has been verified. OTRS Ticket#2020081310000584. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, thanks for taking my suggestion you confirm your identity so promptly, and thanks to Glane23 for processing you so promptly.

As I wrote above, I'll help you any way I can that is compliant with our policies and conventions. And if you end up calling on MelanieN, or other contributors here, my best wishes.

Oh. Thanks for your work on Arms Control. It is a very important field of endeavour. Decades ago, when I was a teenager, and interested in Arms Control, I remember spending hours looking through a big book from SIPRI at my local library.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have a policy on conflicts of interest - Conflict of interest. It might seem counter-intuitive to you, but we generally discourage individuals from making edits to articles about themselves, or their friends. Cutting and pasting the biography about you from your University's website would not meet our standards, for several reasons, including:

   The copyright status of the University's official biography of you would be unclear. If a University publicist wrote it the copyright would probably belong to the University, or the publicist, not to you. If you wrote that University biography yourself, the copyright might still belong to the University - depending on your contract with them. We don't use material that has not been licensed so it can be freely re-used.
   Articles about individuals require independent reliable sources. Your colleague removed all the references.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT ON MY ACCURATE BIOGRAPHY ON THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SITE ABOUT ME : I HAVE NO COPYRIGHT ON IT AND NEITHER DOES
THE UNIVERSITY OR ANY OTHER ENTITY IN THE WORLD. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO PREVENT YOU FROM USING THAT AND NOT CHANGING IT.IT WAS COMPOSED  JOINTLY BY ME TOGETHER WITH THE DEPUTY OF THE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AND SECURITY STUDIES AT THE UNIVERSITY, JONAS SIEGEL
  I REPEAT YOU ARE REPLACING ACCURATE INFORMATION WITH INACCURTE INFORMATION ABOUT ME.
  I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANT TO DO THAT

2. I WILL SEND NAMES TO VERIFY THAT I AM MILTON LEITENBERG TO THE LINK THAT YOU PROVIDED. 3. IF YOU WANT "independent reliable sources. Your colleague removed all the references" INSTEAD OF THE JOURNALISM ARTICLES THAT YOU INCLUDED AS REFERENCES I CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH SERIOUS BOOK REVIEWS OF THE MOST RECENT BOOK THAT I PUBLISHED. I KNOW HOW TO ATTACH THOSE TO AN EMAIL IF YOU SENT ME YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS BUT I DONT KNOW HOW TO TURN THOSE INTO LINKS TO PUT RIGHT HERE. I WILL HAVE TO ASK SOMEONE AT THE UNIVERSITY TO DO THAT, OR ASK HIM TO PLACE THOSE INTO THE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY DIRECTLY, WHICH SHOULD SATISFY YOUR REQUIREMENT. INCIDENTALLY AS YOU WANT TO BE A STICKLER FOR ACCURACY , YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ARE ONE OF THE LAST PLACES TO USE FOR THAT. I HAVE BEEN QUOTED IN THE INTERNATIONAL PRESS IN MULTIPLE COUNTRIES SINCE AROUND 1970-71, AND HALF THE TIME THE JOURNALIST MISCONSTRUES WHAT YOU TELL THEM IN AN INTERVIEW. I EVEN SEE THAT YOU PRESENTLY HAVE MADE TWO WIKIPEDIA SITES FOR ME, ONE WITH MY LAST NAME MISSPELLED : WHY DONT YOU AT LEAST GET RID OF THAT ONE ? MILTON LEITENBERG 71.126.164.156 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Leitenberg. Maybe I can help here. I often write or edit articles about academics and scientists. I will take a look at your information and see what I can do about your article. It does need work. At this point it doesn't even list your education and degrees which I assume we can get from your university biography page. I will see about adding those things. However, you need to understand that we cannot simply reproduce your university page as the article. It's not just a matter of copyright. We must have our own sources of information and write things in our own words. And the subject of the article does not get to determine what is in the article; that would violate our principle of neutrality. This is an encyclopedia, we have our own style, and we rely on multiple sources. We don't usually list everything the person has written, maybe a few highlights. Sometimes we do include things that the subject would rather not have mentioned, or leave out language that is flattering or what we call "puffery". I'm not saying that is the case with your article because I haven't really looked at it yet, just letting you know what it is like to be the subject of a biography here.

I will take a look right now and see what I can do about your page. If you want to talk to me about it, my talk page is here: User talk:MelanieN. Please don't write in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS; that is hard to read, and in the online world it is known as "shouting". We prefer normal prose. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After my first look for internet sources, I am puzzled that none of your academic profiles mention your education: that is, degrees and institutions. I have never seen an academic profile that omitted that information. Is it available anywhere? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mustafa Ait Idir 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/Mustafa Ait Idir until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Witnesses requested by Guantanamo detainees 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/Witnesses requested by Guantanamo detainees until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]