Talk:No-hearing hearings

message: IMO, it is preferable for the reference-names we use with references to encode the date with the name.  
Doing so allows us to more easily re-use references if we realize that the info the reference substantiates
belongs in another article, or the reference can substantiate an unreferenced assertion in another
article.  Adding the date makes it much less likely that there will be a name collision if and when the
reference is cut and paste into a different article, or even if someone adds additional references from the
same publication.  --  Geo Swan 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: change references: reference-names

message: Someone delinked the names of the other authors of the study.  I'd like to ask — why?
Cheers!  --  Geo Swan 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone delinked the names of the other authors of the study

message: Here is a list of those captives who explicitly claimed they were "sold".  I know it is not complete, because there are other captives I know of, who claimed they were captured by bounty hunters who didn't make this "sold" list.
FWIW, there are a whole bunch of captives who report friendly Pakistani villagers welcoming them, and holding a celebratory feast, only to turn them over to the authorities the next morning, that make me think thye were sold for a bounty, even if they don't know they were sold for a bounty.
And who knows how many Recorders did not feel these claims were worth recording in the summarized transcripts?
Cheers!  --  Geo Swan 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of captives whose transcripts explicitly repeated the word "sold" is complete.  Abdullah Khan, and Nasrullah (Guantanamo detainee 951) I added because they were captured together with Shahzada (Guantanamo detainee 952) — a slight stretch.
====Were the Uyghurs all sold for a bounty?====
Abu Bakr Qassim, the Uyghur, was one of the 38 captives whose denials were credible enough they were classified as NLEC.  Eighteen of the Uyghurs fled the bombing campaign together.  Five of them were credible enough they were classified as NLEC.  But they were all captured at the same time.  So if Qassim's account of the capture is credible, all 18 were sold for a bounty.  Geo Swan 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List, so far

message: Abu Bakr Qassim, the Uyghur, was one of the 38 captives whose denials were credible enough they were classified as NLEC.  Eighteen of the Uyghurs fled the bombing campaign together.  Five of them were credible enough they were classified as NLEC.  But they were all captured at the same time.  So if Qassim's account of the capture is credible, all 18 were sold for a bounty.  Geo Swan 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Were the Uyghurs all sold for a bounty?

message: Was everyone held at Mazari Sharif was sold for a bounty?  I think they were.  If the accounts of the captives who survived the riot are to be believed, then the bounties were paid on entry.  
Cheers!  --  Geo Swan 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was everyone held at Mazari Sharif sold for a bounty?

message: I think it is perfectly valid to say that Mark and Joshua Denbeaux represent two Guantanamo captives.  I don't have a problem with the article stating this in the lead paragraphs.  Geo Swan 01:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro paragraph(s)

message: I wouldn't normally be as bold as I was in this edit, but the article is currently in .  It may be deleted, so I am going to be bolder than usual, and make the excisions I discussed earlier.
These first two paragraphs belong on the wikipedia.  They may belong somewhere in this article.  Arguably, they should only be in the article about the earlier study.  I am certian they don't belong in the intro paragraph.
Randy, let me acknowledge you have made some very valid points about the Denbeaux.  I value your opinion.
Cheers!  Geo Swan 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wouldn't normally be so bold -- see talk 

message: I've started about 600 articles.  About 5% have been nominated for deletion.  
This is only the second time I can remember the wikipedian who nominated an article for deletion subsequently making an edit to that article.  TO the best of my recollection, even my most malicious wikistalker didn't do that when he nominated articles for deletion.
TDC, YMMV, but I think your best friend would warn you that an edit of this kind puts an avoidable strain on your correspondents.
No, I am not accusing you of bad faith.  But I think you have been careless, and acted in a way that gives an avoidable appearance of bad faith.
Yes, you and I are both supposed to be doing our best to assume good will.  But that means we should be trying to show our good will.  And one way we can do this is by avoiding edits that look suspicious and place a burden on our correspondents where their common sense is at war with WP:AGF. 
I think your best friend would suggest greater caution — if you ever nominate another article for deletion.
IMO, in general, an edit like this should be discussed on the talk page.  Remember WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battlefield.
I added that text back in.
Yours for cooperation  Geo Swan 15:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YMMV -- see talk 

message: This article was proposed for deletion on 20:24, 29 May 2007 by Torturous Devastating Cudgel
The discussion can be found here.
The closing admin User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me concluded keep on 02:01, 5 June 2007.
Cheers!  Geo Swan 01:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|afd}} closed 

message: I undid these revisions because there seems to be a temporary glitch in one of the sites I used.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  trim 

message: This is the title of a book-length study published in 2006, and should have been capitalized as the study was. This use of lower case is artificial and a distortion of the title. It really should be moved to the appropriately capitalized titleParkwells (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of study