User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2017-11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

Pakistanis and Afghans released since 2009...[edit]

After a fist look there have been no Pakistanis released from Guantanamo, since 2009.

Could there have been Afghans, released since 2009, who could be mistaken for Pakistanis, as it is a very loose border...

Geo Swan (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

suspects[edit]

I looked at the Pakistanis and it doesn't look like any of them are good candidates. Here are some (incomplete) files with my rough work.

  • User:Geo Swan/Pakistani weight records -- I listed the height of every Pakistani who was over 68 inches tall. The only Pakistani to be released during the right period is Hafez Qari Mohamed Saad Iqbal Madni, the former child prodigy, who appeared on the Arabic show that celebrates kids who can recite the whole Koran. But he is only 65 inches.
  • User:Geo Swan/Afghans repatriated from Guantanamo 2007 to 2012 -- relatively few Afghans, in this period. In 2007 the DoD spent a huge whack of money to add a new wing to a huge maximum security prison the Soviets built. This American wing could house several hundred captives. It was staffed by Afghan guards trained, equipped and paid by the USA. It had a courtroom built in. Prior to its opening repatriated Afghans were all just let go -- catch and release. After its 2007 opening all Afghan captives were transferred here, to "stand trial". So your guy could have been transferred as early as 2007, and spent several years in Pul-e-Charkhi, and still been truthful when he said he spent 9 years in US custody. Being in the American wing of Pul-e-Charkhi was only nominally in Afghan custody.

I'll keep working on this.

Of coursr I have been following the news, and you guys remain in my thoughts.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more careful...[edit]

You need to relax and stop talking down to other editors. Your condescending attitude isn't welcome here. "Article" creation count (I put article in quotes because I looked at your edit count and creating multiple search word based redirects hardly counts) does not equal competency. Please stop else your time here will quickly come to an end. 24.54.93.58 (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Traditionally, the wikipedia has allowed anonymous contributions, so people who live in repressive countries can still participate.vvIn my opinion this as been a terrible, terrible mistake.
We don't see people from behind the great firewall of china using anonymous IP addresses to contribute. Instead we see anonymous contributions being used by people to evade taking responsibility for their comments and edits.
Some people who have an established Wiki-ID also use IP addresses, for various counter-policy reasons.
I'd like to see all anonymous contributions stopped. I've used other wikis with a higher level of civility, that I believe mainly came from their decision to insist everyone use just one verified ID.
Doniago, since 24.54.93.58 seems to share your concerns, could you confirm or refute as to whether you made those edits, without realizing you weren't logged in? Geo Swan (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, part of me's tempted to interpret this as a failure to assume good faith (i.e. as a suggestion that I'm intentionally socking), but I won't go there. No, I have not made any IP edits relating to this. I do on very rare occasions make minor IP edits, but nothing that has any bearing on this.
For the record, I also wouldn't have made the kind of...let's call it a veiled threat...that the IP made, though you likely noticed that I don't put much stock in the "I've created more articles than you have..." line of reasoning. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Frederick Havemeyer (fireboat)[edit]

Cite errors.Xx236 (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

do as i say, not as i do??[edit]

so, your lengthy post on my page, you know the one where you say to get a good article editors discuss over a period of time and try to come to an agreement, and ONLY then do they make changes. Is that what you did on Jack Letts page?? Let me check? No, no thats not what you did at all. You made disruptive large changes, and only after I asked you about them did you then start to discuss the changes you had already made. But you were so clear that this is not the correct way to make changes. But then you try to talk down to me and say to only make changes once other editors (in the case you mean you) agree. Can you explain why you think there are different rules for you?(pauses and waits for overlong reply where you try to talk down to me again to justify your actions)Simply-the-truth (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh
Some contributors combine being very sensitive to lapses from civility they think apply to them, with being oblivious to when they themselves aren't careful about being civil.
In my opinion contributor Simply-the-truth has mistaken my civil expression of my policy based concerns with personal attacks. Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CommotioCerebri legacy[edit]

I believe the following nonsense warning was really left by the wikistalker once known as CommotioCerebri

BLP Warning[edit]

Please ensure that you review our BLP policy. Just because you don't agree with sources doesn't mean that the sources are incorrect. You are asked to stop editing BLP articles until such time as you can demostrates competence in editing. 2605:8D80:621:9057:ABBD:2A7:96DC:3706 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommotioCerebri made a total of 55 edits -- at least using that ID. Only 12 of those edits were not targeting my contributions. ICommotioCerebri left five separate requests to quit wikistalking, on their talk page. After my last request they requested the CommotioCerebri ID be obfuscated. Individuals can request WP:Courtesy blanking, but those who perform this are not obliged to agree, and I think are supposed to decline when the request has a terrible record -- as CommotioCerebri did.
I've submitted a second SPI, because I think CommotioCerebri, who started as an IP contributor has returned to IP contributions, and has continued to harrass me, using those IP addresses. Geo Swan (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe 2605:8D80:621:9057:ABBD:2A7:96DC:3706 is a sockpuppet of CommotioCerebri. After they made this edit an uninvolved third party reverted their edits, as vandalism. 2605:8D80:621:9057:ABBD:2A7:96DC:3706 reverted that edit. And I reverted them a second time. But now I have decided that, to be consisten with advice I have given other people, I will restore this nonsense, so it goes into my user talk archive.

    Some years ago there was an administrator on one of the wikipedia's sister projects whose administratorship was challenged, by someone else. I had noticed that administrator being unwilling or unable to accept good faith questions and good faith expressions of concern over their exercise of administrator authority. They had a record of removing good faith comments from their User talk page, using bogus edit summaries claiming those good faith comments were vandalism or other bad faith. When they were challenged over their abuse of ordinary contributors they urged people to check their talk page archives, claiming their archives proved they were sweet as pie. But, of course, they had removed evidence of their abuse from their talk page, before it was archived.

So I have restored this comment, even though I think any fair-minded person who reviews CommotioCerebri's record will recognize this comment as part of a really indefensible pattern of harrassment.
2605:8D80:621:9057:ABBD:2A7:96DC:3706 also removed an infobox stating I was one of the 800 most active contributors of all time, claiming it was inaccurate. I restored that, and then went and checked. If I had slipped to one of the most 1000 active contributors I would have updated, accordingly. I found that, as of today, I am the 562nd most active contributor. Geo Swan (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This contributor requested retirement of the CommotioCerebri ID. I think they made this request in order to obfuscate their contribution history, to make it easier to get away with using IP sockpuppets to continue to wikistalk me. They subsequently used close to a dozen IP sockpuppets for their wikistalking, which were all (temporarily) range blocked. Geo Swan (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is 2605:8...[edit]

Who contributes to the wikipeda using anonymous IP addresses in the range 2605:8...

Shaort answer? Vandals

There are nine IP addresses in this range, which geolocate reports is from the Southern Ontario region Geo Swan (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

contriubtion history of anonymous contributors in the 2605:8... range
edit IP when target notes
[1] 2605:8D80:621:9057:2014:DEE0:BF77:C0EE 2017-11-11 15:20 User talk:Geo Swan vandalism
[2] 2605:8D80:440:C97D:30FF:3C12:9359:5A0A 2017-05-01 08:10 Sam_and_Amanda_Fowler

Outing[edit]

You currently appear to be attempting to out an anonymous user. This is unacceptable and will result in your removal from Wikipedia. Please read WP:OUTING and perhaps step back from the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.78.19 (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OUTING cautions against publishing "personal information". It offers a list "/Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not./" I haven't published anything like that.
Wikipedia's rules do allow the temporary collation of diffs of another contributor's edits, when that collation is being used when voicing concerns about that contributor's compliance with policy.
I have been doing that for the highly disruptive individual who uses IP addresses in the 2605:8D80 range. How closely I have identified them? Only that geoloacate places them in Southern Ontario -- the same general location of 24.114.78.19, the IP above. Geo Swan (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now using IP addresses in the 24.114.xxx.xxx range. Geo Swan (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding[edit]

It has become clear that you are obsessed with outing and hounding. Your talk page is filled with accusations, you need to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.37.220 (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pot, kettle, black. Geo Swan (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I advised the administrator who blocked this individual's earlier sockpuppets of their return, and asked if they thought I should start a new SPI. Geo Swan (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack letts[edit]

happy to discuss this page mate, its not my page, so the more the merrier. But it has to be accurate. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply-the-truth (talk • contribs) 10:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this contributor has not, after all, proven willing and able to discuss the issues of Jack Letts. I checked at ANI. Other contributors, who were less patient, and didn't wait as long for them to properly explain the edits that triggered concern, made several reports. Sigh. Geo Swan (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geo_Swan/archive/2017-11&oldid=814450846"