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


Please stop slandering other editors by misrepresenting their motives

edit

You completely misrepresented my edits because either you did not check the references and/or you did not read carefully. Please do not accuse others of having ulterior motives because of your carelessness.Sy9045 (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This odd comment is in response to what I consider a civil and collegial expression of concern.
I responded back on @Sy9045:'s talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

dab pages

edit

Hallo, When you create a dab page like Pearl Island, please remember to include the {{dab}} template - otherwise we get careless editors labelling it as an uncategorised stub. Thanks. PamD 13:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list listed at Redirects for discussion

edit
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list. Since you had some involvement with the Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reference errors on 11 June

edit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reference errors on 13 June

edit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please stop harassing other Wikipedia editors. You are harassing me. Please stop it now

edit

You have been harassing me for innocuous edits and claiming various reputable sources I've cited like WSJ, Politifact, Washington Post, Time, etc. as not being reputable when they're nothing but. We have gone over these edits time after time. First you falsely accused me of inventing stories about the Taliban 5. After I showed you the sources that were clearly cited on that page for those paragraphs (which completely discredited your argument), you resorted to harassing me in other ways. Have another editor speak with me if you have questions because you are clearly not attempting to communicate in any constructive manner whatsoever. Stop harassing me now.Sy9045 (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • (Sigh) I said none of the things Sy9045 apparently thinks I said, as a check of the records would show.
  1. I never said WSJ, etc, weren't reputable. I did say that paragraphs weren't referenced, when they had no references in them. Contributors can't claim references used in other parts of the article are adequate references for brand new unreferenced paragraphs.
  2. I never said @Sy9045: "invented stories" about the Taliban Five. Rather, I said that he or she was repeating what were merely allegations, as if they were truths, and doing so without attributing them, or citing them. This is not compliant with WP:NPOV.
  3. I did admonish Sy9045 for not looking for alternate interpretations of who these men were.
Sadly, many people in general, including wikipedia contributors, interpret civil, collegial expressions of concern as if they were harrassment or personal attacks.
After I left a comment on User talk:Sy9045's talk page I couldn't help noticing that several other contributors had left earlier civil expressions of concern there, only to have them interpreted as personal attacks.
Sy9045 says "Have another editor speak with me if you have questions because you are clearly not attempting to communicate in any constructive manner whatsoever." (Sigh) Somehow, seeing how they have rejected the good faith advice of multiple people, I don't see that working out well. Maybe I will make the effort to call in a third party.
Usually I follow the established convention of confining the discussion to the page where it started. I won't here however. Geo Swan (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re: Could you please explain...

edit

The specific text you're looking for is WP:NFC#UUI, specifically point #7, which expressly sets out that if an image is sold by a press agency, our hosting of that image directly competes with their original market role per WP:NFCC #2. Even if we allow for the idea that these organizations may take up freely licensed images and sell them, which is not something I'm aware of on any kind of scale, at that point the burden in such a discussion flips to the uploader to demonstrate that this has occurred for an individual instance. I read the Reuters citation on Stefan2's second link as referring to the article text only, and the only clear citation I see for the image is AFP.

As a sidenote, remember that Wikipedia very intentionally does not use the language "fair use" in describing our policies on non-free content. There are many aspects of our policy where we are stricter than the U.S. government requires in order to meet that legal burden. You may be right that the use of the image could be justified by the fair use doctrine, but my reading of the situation as it relates to Wikipedia policies as they were 2 years ago (and remain, substantively identically, today) was that his reasoning was correct. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reference errors on 22 June

edit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reference errors on 26 June

edit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reference errors on 28 June

edit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply