User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2018-03

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

Replaceable fair use File:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item 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 creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media 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 the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the text I put in the {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed}} tag

I am surprised by the suggestion this image is replaceable with a free image. (1) Obviously, none of us has a time machine, to go back a dozen years, and capture Mr Fodor's arrival, and release that as a free image. (2) Couldn't an image of a boat like this boat serve as an adequate substitute for this image? Absolutely not. If an RS said Fodor arrived in a specific model of pleasure craft, then a free image of that model of boat would be an adequate substitute. But we don't have that. I can't help thinking that Aspects who applied the tag to challenge this image, didn't really pay attention, when they read the description, and the article. Fodor risked his life in this boat. He traveled something like 2,000 kilometers, in some of the most isolated and dangerous waters on Planet Earth. He had practically run out of fuel, by the time he arrived at his destination. Cuba and Florida are about 140 kilometers apart. The Caribean is warm. Border-jumpers don't have to dodge icebergs. If they fall in, they won't freeze to death in less than half an hour. They can leave and arrive before it gets dark. None of this was true for Fodor's dangerous expedition. Perhaps user Aspect was confused by this much more common and much safer route, and didn't understand how truly dangerous and unprecedented this voyage was? Fodor's attempt to sneak into Canada, from Greenland was unprecedented. No one had ever done it before. No one has done it since. Fodor had a very poor understanding of Canada, of Canada's north. He had no idea how small Grise Fiord is. He had no idea that his arrival would be the very first unscheduled arrival in history. The owner of the local General Store schedules one delivery, by freighter, per year. In 2018, the community gets a couple of visits from very small cruise ships, bearing adventure tourists. But, in 2006, there was nothing like that. Even locals, from other northern communities, fly in. The closest communities are all way to far to make visits by sea. In my opinion, an accurate understanding of his expedition requires the use of this non-free image.

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Florin Fodor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Muboshgu, we are all supposed to assume good faith. I am prepared to act on the assumption that our interaction does not represent your best work.
• Okay, are you sure you weren't too hasty in leaving this warning template here?

1. I checked. You escalated to {{Uw-3rr}}, skipping {{Uw-1rr}}.
2. I saw this comment you left at WP:Requests for page protection. I am not a mind-reader. I won't presume I can know, for sure, what you really meant. But, realistically, you do realize this comment looks like I triggered you to get annoyed? Don't the guidelines for administrators recommend only putting on your administrator hat when you have no emotional involvement? Maybe you are super mellow, and you have no emotional involvement, but your comment merely gives the appearance of emotional involvement? Do you think this should have been enough to leave giving me a warning to some other administrator, who hasn't given the appearance of emotional involvement?

   From my perspective you gave me an unexplained refusal, not what I regard as an "answer".

3. Doesn't WP:Edit_warring#Exemptions explicitly list exemptions? Isn't the third exemption: "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users"?

   Can I draw your attention to This SPI? 2605:8d80:687:6af4:468a:6d2d:8181:6d4, the IP that accused me of violating 3RR, is a very near neighbour of 2605:8D80:6A4:7C4E:9883:EC1C:31FB:AED0, 2605:8D80:620:DD8F:B26:F0B9:46AD:93C0, 2605:8D80:621:9057:ABBD:2A7:96DC:3706, 2605:8D80:621:BF5D:30A:9331:CF04:A2FE -- other IPs they have used in the past.

   Is there really any doubt that these IP edits were the work of a sockpuppetmaster?

4. Strictly speaking, four edits that span a period of greater than 24 hours, aren't normally considered a lapse from WP:3RR, right? Yes, I understand sometimes a dogged individual is still warned for 3RR, even if their edits don't, strictly speaking, lapse from 3RR. But I encourage you to reconsider this warning. I think if you look more closely, and fairly, it was very clear I was reverting a vandal, someone who was using sockpuppetry to evade our rules.
5. Yes, I know 2605:8d80:687:6af4:468a:6d2d:8181:6d4's edit summary said "3RR violation". But why would you take a claim like this, at face value, when it was from an IP address, probably being used by a sockpuppetmaster? The time-stamps show that I made four reversions, but over the course of 28 hours. Their edit summaries, while giving a surface appearance of normality, include wild distortions. This edit, for instance, was not reverting vandalism, for any reasonable definition of vandalism. The IP contributor(s) kept deleting both the non-free image, AND Image:Orthographic sisimiut, qaanag, grise fiord.png, an image I created myself, so I know, for an absolute fact, it was published under a free license.

   Maybe you are not really familiar how experienced wikihounders operate. Bogus edit summaries, that give the surface appearance of regularity, are their standard operating procedure.

   Their bogus edit summaries chastised me for not discussing my edits, on Talk:Florin Fodor. I think I did explain myself, on the talk page. Did you simply take those edit summaries at face value, without taking a look at Talk:Florin Fodor for yourself?

   Maybe the use of non-free images is not one of the aspects of the wikipedia where you aren't experienced? The sockpuppet's deceptive edit summaries chastise me to including a non-free image -- without first getting consensus for its use. Well, that is not how non-free images are used. We have strict rules as to when non-free images can be used. But not only do those rules not require a prior consensus, this prior consensus is not actually possible, as non-free images that are not currently in use on an article are subject to speedy deletion.

Rather, when a contributor thinks there is non-free image that measures up to our non-free inclusion criteria, they (1) fill out a non-free rationale, explaining how it meets our criteria; (2) upload the image; and (3) immediately include the image in the article(s) they claimed justified its use. I repeat, our procedure has no place for seeking consensus first.

Of course we have procedures for those who disagree whether an image measures up to our non-free inclusion criteria to challenge the image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz challenged the image's use by snipping it from the article. When they snipped it in 2017 they justified the snip by saying it shouldn't be used in the infobox. I've never heard of that restriction, but I satisfied their stated concern by moving it out of the infobox. The second time they snipped the image, they didn't really explain why they removed it. So I asked them to return to the talk page, and offer an explanation. HW did not return, and offer a policy based explanation for their excision, so, seven days later, I restored the image to the article, and said that was what I had done.

Articles are only supposed to be {{prod}}ed once. I think that, after my call for explanation, on the talk page, subsequent concerns over the image have to escalate, just like how a prod is challenged by a full AFD, I think tagging the image is a next logical step for challengers. Aspects placed that tag, a completely policy compliant choice.

When an article is being discussed at AFD, we would all recognize that challengers who chose to blank the article, or totally gut the article, instead of just offering their opinion, in the AFD discussion, were committing vandalism. I think if you consult other administrators, experienced with dealing with non-free images, they will back me up, that, when a non-free image has a challenge tag, excising it from the article(s) where it is being used is disruptive. I offered my rebuttal to the challenge tag. I think if you consult other administrators, experienced with dealing with non-free images, they will tell you that, while the challenge tag is in place, additional individuals with challenges to the image's use should offer their further arguments, on the image's talk page, or by placing a different non-free-image-challenge tag, on the image.

That is why I described the IP's excisions as vandalism.

Now that another administrator has offered an official opinion on the challenge tag, I think the next step would be WP:REVDEL.

I am going to repeat I think it was a mistake, on your part, to take the edit summaries of a sockpuppetmaster at face value.

1. Doesn't the warning template you placed explicitly suggest "In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection." I tried requesting semi-protection, and the administrator who reviewed my request, uh you, turned down my request, without, it seems to me, any meaningful explanation.

   I am not experienced at page protection. I think this was my very first request. In my opinion, every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment.

   You might think it was obvious why you turned down my request? nothing is obvious.

   In my opinion, we should be able to rely on our administrators to set a good example to less experienced contributors. In my opinion setting a good example implies taking reasonable steps to make sure their acts and comments are understood.

   My first experience with an article being locked from editing was also the first time an administrator threatened to place a block on me. I made a good faith addition to an article, one that I thought was neutrally written, and properly referenced, only to have it promptly excised, with a missing or inadequate edit summary. I genuinely thought that excision was vandalism, and restored my addition, saying "revert unexplained excision". The other party reverted me, and locked the article so only administrators could edit it. They kept it locked, and refused to explain what they were doing, until they had put in place their preferred version. They then threatened to block me. What exactly would I have to do, to trigger that block? Unclear. I couldn't get them to answer that question. They didn't offer any kind of explanation, on the article's talk page, while it was locked. And the post lock explanation was pretty weak. It turned out they weren't very good at web searches. They thought the only references that backed up what I contributed were from Alex Jones Infowar site, or one of its clandestine mirrors. But they failed to find several legitimate RS completely unrelated Infowar. I had this threat of a block hanging over me, without knowing, specifically, what was going to trigger it, with the administrator's justification for the block deeply flawed. (This was about 10 years ago, and I had never heard of infowars.)

   Administrators really have to be both careful and respectful when they issue warnings. In my opinion, it is a huge mistake when the warning is based on a misconception. In my opinion, it is a huge mistake when the warning is not clear as to what the administrator thinks should trigger it.

2. You removed updates about the excisions of the image from the article, that I left on File:Florin_Fodor_in_Grise_Fiord_-_October_2006.jpg, with the edit summary "this is also inappropriate behavior". Okay, as above, I am going to assume you aren't really familiar with how we deal with non-free images.

   This is not the first image I have uploaded where someone has inappropriately excised the image from the relevant articles. Another image I considered valuable was excised when someone excised the image from the article shortly before the challenge tag expired. Based on that experience I decided it was critical to inform the administrator dealing with the challenge tag that parties had excising it from the article. I don't want to see non-free images that would have successfully passed their challenges being deleted because someone made sure they didn't satisfy the criteria of being in use in an appropriate article, right before the decision was made. So, no, I think your comment that my updates were inappropriate is incorrect.

3. Just to be clear -- this warning you left for me here -- you were threatening to block me, if I made further edits to Florin Fodor, correct?

   As above, I think it would be a mistake for you to issue me any administrator warnings, after your apparently emotional comment.

   But, when an administrator issues warnings that they will consider blocking an individual, don't you think it would be better if those warnings were more specific than the one you seem to have issued?

   You realize that the sockpuppet also repeatedly excised Image:Orthographic sisimiut, qaanag, grise fiord.png with no legitimate justification, whatsoever? If your threat of a block was legitimate, would it have applied to restoration of this map, that I made personally, specifically for this article, and which I know has no copyright issues?

   Now that another administrator has officially declined the challenge tag, if the next step for a challenger is REVDEL, would your threat to block me, if I restored the image, still stand?

AGF. I am happy to act on the assumption that your response(s) to my requests for semi-protection, and other comments and edits, in response to my comments and edits, do not represent your best work.

Years ago I wrote a user essay on apologies. That is still my position. People hate feeling forced to apologize so much I would rather forgo being apologized to. I do, however, strongly appreciate some kind of acknowledgement that the other party recognizes they erred -- necessary, in my opinion, to re-establish trust.

I do my best to own up when I recognize I was in error. I do so even when it is unpleasant. I think I do an OK job acknowledging when I recognize my mistakes. And I would like to think I could expect the same from my wikipedia collaborators. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I will be very disappointed if your response is a TLDR, or any variation there-of. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Rahaf Zina for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rahaf Zina 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/Rahaf Zina 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 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. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hamidullah Khan -- a youth held in Bagram.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hamidullah Khan -- a youth held in Bagram.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Abdullah Yahia Yousf Al Shabli for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abdullah Yahia Yousf Al Shabli 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/Abdullah Yahia Yousf Al Shabli 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 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. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Habib Ullah

A tag has been placed on Habib Ullah, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an "attack page", and appears to be primarily intended to disparage or threaten its subject. This includes biographies of living people that are unsourced and entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks; attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, 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. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Deleted by RHaworth, about an hour after it was tagged. As I noted on User_talk:RHaworth#Your assistance please..., I don't particularly remember this article, when I started it, or when I last worked on it. I requested a copy of my last revision be sent, by email. Geo Swan (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • (Some?) of the history of Habib Ullah has been restored. It shows my last edit was to turn Habib Ullah into a redirect, in 2007. It looks like there are some deleted edits, where, presumably, somebody may have then turned the redirect into an attack page. I asked the tagger to consider whether they should not have left the heads-up on the contributor who turned the redirect into an attack page. Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Hikmat Nafi Shaukat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hikmat Nafi Shaukat 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/Hikmat Nafi Shaukat 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 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. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)