Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
As the article [[Secondary source]] states, "Many sources can be considered either primary and secondary, depending on the context in which they are used." In this case, it appears that all the sources used in the article [[Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam]] which actually refer to Ajam himself are primary sources ''as to establishing notability''. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 01:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
As the article [[Secondary source]] states, "Many sources can be considered either primary and secondary, depending on the context in which they are used." In this case, it appears that all the sources used in the article [[Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam]] which actually refer to Ajam himself are primary sources ''as to establishing notability''. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 01:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Thanks for taking the time to return to the {{tl|afd}} and offering further, civil, meaningful comments. Thanks for responding here. |
|||
:If I understand you, you are not in favor of merging and deleting all articles about Guantanamo captives. But you would favoring all articles about Guantanamo captives, for whom the only references we have are the Summary of Evidence memos, if the allegations in those memos contain allegations that are not highly remarkable? |
|||
:About three or four hundred of the captives have had some kind of press coverage. A smaller number, I can't really estimate how many, have had ongoing, recurring coverage. |
|||
:*So, you would support keeping articles about Guantanamo captives who have published books, since their release, or have been the subject of books written by others? Moazzam Begg, for instance is in the news all the time. |
|||
:*Captives repatriated captives made the news when they were repatriated; and again when their home country laid charges against them; again when they went to trial; when they were sentenced; when their sentence was overturned on appeal. |
|||
:*Some captives have press references, in their wikipedia article, to just a single event, like their repatriation. |
|||
who |
|||
:You may have been suggesting that the allegations Ajam faced were typical of of the kind of allegations the 572 captives who went through a CSR Tribunal faced. If so, I would agree. The allegations he faced are not untypical. |
|||
:I know some people would regard a profile by Amnesty International of Human Rights First as of equivalent worth to press coverage. |
|||
:*Well over one hundred captives had their continued detention justified because their name, or "known alias", was found on some kind of suspicious list. |
|||
:**Being accused of being listed on the contact list on KSM's laptop? How significant is that? |
|||
:**Some other references to suspicious lists are worded a lot less alarmingly. This doesn't mean those lists are less alarming. |
|||
:**Half a dozen captives faced the allegation that they were listed on a web-site devoted to publicizing the details of their cases, in order to lobby their home governments to press for the USA for their release. Heck, from that description, the web-site could have been Amnesty International. |
|||
:The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy. The nominator has accused me of turning the article into a "COATRACK". I believe I refuted that. |
|||
:I don't know if you noticed, but it seems to me that the nominator has been unnecessarily hostile, combative and accusatory. |
|||
:The testimony of about 450 of those 572 captives, before their CSRT or their first or second annual Administrative Review Board hearings has been published. |
|||
:*Can I ask your opinion on whether you could see a captive's testimony, on top of the allegation memos, could make them merit an article? If the captive claimed they were tortured in custody, could you see that as sufficient to merit coverage? |
|||
:*What if the captive claimed they were sold for a bounty? |
|||
:*What if the captive pointed out that the allegations against them were internally inconsistent? |
|||
:*What if the captive claimed the allegations in the memo were brand new to them, were totally unrelated to anything they had ever been interrogated about? |
|||
:Another respondent said that there were articles about 645 Guantanamo captives. That sounds like about the right number. For the record we don't have articles about all 776 captives because there remain about 150 captives we don't know anything about, other than their name, nationality and birth date. |
|||
:There is no record that about one hundred captives attended any of their Tribunals. There is also evidence that the DoD has failed to comply with the court order forcing them to release these documents. |
|||
:I appreciate you taking the further time to review those other documents. I appreciate you taking the time to leave a civil, meaningful reply on the {{tl|afd}}. Thanks again. Cheers! [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 16:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Permission Error=== |
===Permission Error=== |
Revision as of 16:32, 27 March 2008
Archive 1 (2005) |
Blanking instead of deleting Talk pages?
Hi Metropolitan90, just for curiosity, why blank Talk:LEMO instead of deleting? If that is the policy, I'll avoid bothering admins with speedy tags. Thanks, Sergio Ballestrero (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is a specific policy that deals with this, and other admins might have chosen to delete Talk:LEMO instead of blanking it. The content of the talk page had been just the number and letter ".68c". If someone had created an article in the mainspace with just that, it would clearly have been speedily deletable for nonsense or lack of content or lack of context. But this was a talk page, and users are allowed more freedom in terms of what they put on talk pages. LEMO is a legitimate page, so even if Talk:LEMO had been deleted, anyone could re-create it for any reason without even being logged in. Since ".68c" isn't libelous or a copyright violation, it doesn't harm anyone for it to be in the edit history. Personally, as an admin, I'm much more concerned about the mainspace than what appears on talk pages, so I usually delete pages in the Talk: namespace only if their corresponding pages in the mainspace have been deleted or never existed. However, I encourage you to keep looking for pages which ought to be speedily deleted and tagging them, since I used to do that but don't get around to that much anymore. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Understood and agreed, it makes good sense for Talk. I also don't really have time for random patrolling, but I still keep an eye on a bunch of pages. --Sergio Ballestrero (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
National Association of Scholars
Dear Metropolitan90,
Thanks for your note about copyright infringements on our page. Can you tell me how to donate our material to Wikipedia? I read about it, but it wasn't clear. And can you tell me how to recover the page once we make the donation? You can post on the page where you posted before for National Association of Scholars.
Thank you
Adebter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adebter (talk • contribs)
Delete Cavs Depth Chart
It has been confirmed by the user that the depth chart here : [1] be removed as stated here : [2] Only admins can do it so your it. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It has already been taken care of by another admin. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
{{User mo-2}}
Because not only it's POV but is also not accurate. It was meant as a joke. Anyway see other articles on the matter. No user can speak Moldovan, since all speak Romanian.BereTuborg (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you want the Moldovan language user templates deleted, it would be better to take them to WP:TFD instead rather than trying to speedy delete them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. BereTuborg (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"Miss Cosmos"
Just FYI... two more "Miss Cosmos" type articles have also appeared, so I decided to tack them on to the existing AFD rather than create separate ones. I hope this was okay... I just wanted to alert you since you had already voted. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
regarding this change
You may have wanted to read the talk page. --Rockfang (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Aydınlatma ve Isıtma Araçları Müzesi
An article that you have been involved in editing, Aydınlatma ve Isıtma Araçları Müzesi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aydınlatma ve Isıtma Araçları Müzesi. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Removed prod from Hovel t moon because the creator protested its deletion
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Hovel t moon, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hovel t moon, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! -- Atamachat 19:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Copyright query
Hi, I noticed that you declined the speedy tag I put on The Alabama Militia Law of 1820 (and that you've now prodded it). I was just wondering whether this copyright notice is invalid (as it was the only reason I tagged it)? I'm no expert but I thought that as the text was almost certainly copied from there and not the original document, that it would still be a copyvio? I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time but I don't want to make the same mistake again. thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I just tagged it with copyvio.--Rockfang (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've submitted my comment on this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems to allow Wikipedia's copyright experts to make the decision. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Which, on reflection, is where I should have taken it. Thanks anyway, ascidian | talk-to-me 23:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've submitted my comment on this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems to allow Wikipedia's copyright experts to make the decision. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Response to your message to Marathi Mulgaa...
Dear Metropolitan90,
Thank you for the note on my talk page. This page contains the same content as those deleted below but in French. User:Cult Free World says he's translating it into English. Very sneaky try to avoid the deletion review procedure.
Previous deletions are here:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sahaj_Marg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission_%28Chennai%29
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission_%28Shahjahanpur%29
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Institute_of_Sri_Ram_Chandra_Consciousness
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_of_Shahjahanpur
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sri_Parthasarathy_Rajagopal_Chari
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Sahaj_Marg_India
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Sahaj_Marg_India/fr
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Sahaj_Marg_India
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Sahaj_Marg_India/fr/x
A condition for re-posting the article was secondary materials required (this was the reason it was deleted, because no secondary sources). User:Willbeback confirmed that secondary sources were needed for the article to survive deletion review here.
Thank you for looking at this. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain more fully?
I do my best to really understand the position of those who disagree with me.
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam you expressed the judgment that the article didn't use any secondary sources. I posed questions, looking for clarification as to whether the OARDEC "Summary of Evidence memos" were or were not secondary sources.
I would really appreciate you looking at WP:RS/Noticeboard#Primary source, or secondary source? and WP:RS/Noticeboard#What constitutes an "independent third party source"?
If, after reading those two sections, you still feel the memos are not secondary sources, I would really appreciate an explanation. Even a hint as to why you do not regard those memos as secondary sources would be helpful.
If you read those two relatively brief discussion, remained sure the memos were not secondary sources, but didn't feel prepared to discuss this, or explain why, I would appreciate a one sentence note saying something like. "I read them, my opinion is unchanged, but I don't want to discuss it." -- I would still find that helpful, and would respect your wishes.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- If I understand your argument correctly, it appears that you consider that these memos are not primary sources because they are based on other documents which are primary sources. However, I believe that this is an overly limited definition of what a primary source can be. I understand that these memos were generated as part of the process of review of the individuals' detention at Guantanamo Bay.
As a point of comparison, a legal brief might make extensive references to documents produced in the litigation, and a judge's written decision explaining the reasoning behind the verdict might in turn be based in part on the legal brief submitted by the more successful party. Yet the legal briefs and the judge's decision would themselves be primary sources, at least as to establishing notability for the case or its parties in Wikipedia.
Similarly, the fact that Ajam's detention review case has generated some documents which are not themselves evidence but which summarize evidence found in other documents does not establish, in my mind, that he has "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" under WP:BIO. If a general interest newspaper or magazine (in the USA, Syria, or anywhere else) were to print an article focusing on Ajam himself, that would be the kind of secondary source I would be looking for in order to establish notability.
As the article Secondary source states, "Many sources can be considered either primary and secondary, depending on the context in which they are used." In this case, it appears that all the sources used in the article Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam which actually refer to Ajam himself are primary sources as to establishing notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to return to the {{afd}} and offering further, civil, meaningful comments. Thanks for responding here.
- If I understand you, you are not in favor of merging and deleting all articles about Guantanamo captives. But you would favoring all articles about Guantanamo captives, for whom the only references we have are the Summary of Evidence memos, if the allegations in those memos contain allegations that are not highly remarkable?
- About three or four hundred of the captives have had some kind of press coverage. A smaller number, I can't really estimate how many, have had ongoing, recurring coverage.
- So, you would support keeping articles about Guantanamo captives who have published books, since their release, or have been the subject of books written by others? Moazzam Begg, for instance is in the news all the time.
- Captives repatriated captives made the news when they were repatriated; and again when their home country laid charges against them; again when they went to trial; when they were sentenced; when their sentence was overturned on appeal.
- Some captives have press references, in their wikipedia article, to just a single event, like their repatriation.
who
- You may have been suggesting that the allegations Ajam faced were typical of of the kind of allegations the 572 captives who went through a CSR Tribunal faced. If so, I would agree. The allegations he faced are not untypical.
- I know some people would regard a profile by Amnesty International of Human Rights First as of equivalent worth to press coverage.
- Well over one hundred captives had their continued detention justified because their name, or "known alias", was found on some kind of suspicious list.
- Being accused of being listed on the contact list on KSM's laptop? How significant is that?
- Some other references to suspicious lists are worded a lot less alarmingly. This doesn't mean those lists are less alarming.
- Half a dozen captives faced the allegation that they were listed on a web-site devoted to publicizing the details of their cases, in order to lobby their home governments to press for the USA for their release. Heck, from that description, the web-site could have been Amnesty International.
- Well over one hundred captives had their continued detention justified because their name, or "known alias", was found on some kind of suspicious list.
- The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy. The nominator has accused me of turning the article into a "COATRACK". I believe I refuted that.
- I don't know if you noticed, but it seems to me that the nominator has been unnecessarily hostile, combative and accusatory.
- The testimony of about 450 of those 572 captives, before their CSRT or their first or second annual Administrative Review Board hearings has been published.
- Can I ask your opinion on whether you could see a captive's testimony, on top of the allegation memos, could make them merit an article? If the captive claimed they were tortured in custody, could you see that as sufficient to merit coverage?
- What if the captive claimed they were sold for a bounty?
- What if the captive pointed out that the allegations against them were internally inconsistent?
- What if the captive claimed the allegations in the memo were brand new to them, were totally unrelated to anything they had ever been interrogated about?
- Another respondent said that there were articles about 645 Guantanamo captives. That sounds like about the right number. For the record we don't have articles about all 776 captives because there remain about 150 captives we don't know anything about, other than their name, nationality and birth date.
- There is no record that about one hundred captives attended any of their Tribunals. There is also evidence that the DoD has failed to comply with the court order forcing them to release these documents.
- I appreciate you taking the further time to review those other documents. I appreciate you taking the time to leave a civil, meaningful reply on the {{afd}}. Thanks again. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Permission Error
Why when I click on upload my own photos or the upload form I get Permission Error? Editors want me to make citations but won't let me upload them. (Lookinhere (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
- Sorry, I do not know why you are getting a permission error when you try to upload photos. However, you don't need to upload photos to provide citations -- just type in the information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- The problem you have with uploading may have to do with the fact that you appear to have been an editor for less than 4 days. Once you have passed the 4-day mark you may be able to upload files. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- But I uploaded a photo yesterday with no problem see James Avery Image:James_avery_bust.jpg (Lookinhere (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
- In that case, I don't know what the problem is. (Note: I removed the actual image from this page but left the link.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've noticed editors critical of citations do not do any kind of research into the subject matter and demand that they have instant access to books and reference not available online. These sources are in books in special collections or archives that some editor at the University of China has neither access to nor business critiquing the subject matter they are not educated in or acquainted with. For someone to critique the subject of Colonial America, they should be educated in the particular Individual. Not just someone who says for example “how do I know your car is red, where is the link to your DMV file for the car?” (Lookinhere (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
- In that case, I don't know what the problem is. (Note: I removed the actual image from this page but left the link.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- But I uploaded a photo yesterday with no problem see James Avery Image:James_avery_bust.jpg (Lookinhere (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
- The problem you have with uploading may have to do with the fact that you appear to have been an editor for less than 4 days. Once you have passed the 4-day mark you may be able to upload files. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Nation article by McNeil on Daniel Pipes
I noyiced your comment at Iron Duke's talk page indicating you had more to say at the RS noticeboard discussion of this. The discussion was "closed" immediately after I posted to it, without my point (that McNeil got facts wrong in sliming Pipes, and cannot in the face of that be considered "reliable") being addressed. So I've nowickied the closure and invite you to have your say. Did Relata refero have some authority to perform the premature closure that I am unaware of and need to respect? Andyvphil (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)