Jump to content

User talk:Thundermaker: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 350: Line 350:


::::"Nick, do you see a problem with my talk page suggestion? Do you consider a single sentence or headline, in quotes, with a link, on a talk page, to be a copyvio" - Yes, as there's no context or content other than the copyright protected material and it quickly becomes a very serious problem when repeated dozens of times. This is the kind of thing which can lead to Wikipedia being sued. Gameboy is able to appeal his block via an email to the address listed at [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks]]. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 08:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
::::"Nick, do you see a problem with my talk page suggestion? Do you consider a single sentence or headline, in quotes, with a link, on a talk page, to be a copyvio" - Yes, as there's no context or content other than the copyright protected material and it quickly becomes a very serious problem when repeated dozens of times. This is the kind of thing which can lead to Wikipedia being sued. Gameboy is able to appeal his block via an email to the address listed at [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks]]. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 08:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::In the suggestion on your talk page, i doesn't copy any sentence on that news.I just read that news, understand that news and then i write the summary of that news.Anyways thanks for your advice.[[Special:Contributions/119.152.82.197|119.152.82.197]] ([[User talk:119.152.82.197|talk]]) 11:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


== Military Drone losses in Afghanistan and Iraq ==
== Military Drone losses in Afghanistan and Iraq ==

Revision as of 11:41, 7 July 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Thundermaker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --John (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 56-day cycle

The article 56-day cycle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

proposed based on WP:v WP:cite

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
>>>> Posted By Alex Waelde (Leave Me A Messgae) 03:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban active fighters strength

On 3 March 2010, US estimate that 36,000 Afghan taliban militants are active in Afghanistan. These are some links.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/03-Mar-2010/MajorGeneral-Richard-Barrons-puts-Taliban-fighter-numbers-at-36000-report

http://www.upiasia.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

I think that first one link is best.Because The Nation newspaper is Pakistan's most popular newspaper and its also too much femous on internet.

Update the talibans strength and total strength of all militants which is 98,100 total militants in war in afghanistan article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29119.152.29.16 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like somebody beat me to it. Thundermaker (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition Casualties Update

http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/Index.aspx

1707 killed(US:1032, UK: 279, Others: 396)

8,938+ wounded(US: 5,393[1], UK: 3,545[2]) 119.152.83.251 (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just update UK wounded figures.Please update US wounded figures which is 5,393 then total wounded of US and UK become 8,938 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.152.94 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove contracter casualty figure from war in afghanistan article

Please remove contracter casualty figure from war in Afghanistan(2001-present).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

Please remove contracter casualty figure because that figure is according to 2007.And no one knows correct casualty figure of military contracters.There are more contracters that military, so contracter casualty figure is also higher than military casualty.And the source of that casualty figure is also looks like old and fake. Blackwater and other contracter companies also doesnt announce their casualty figure.And their casualty figure highlight when a military soldier killed alongwith a contracter.119.152.152.94 (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing truth is out of the question. I found a more recent death figure reference, which I have incorporated. [1]. It also casts doubt on your claim that there are more contractors than military in Afghanistan. It says 7,043, which is tiny compared to the military forces. Thundermaker (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No.Thats wrong.Contracters in Afghanistan is really too much higher than military.I hear this inn news.Sorry that i have no sorce.The link you used is US labour casualties, civilian contracters.But in the war in Afghanistan article their figures are for armed military contracter casualties like blackwater casualties, etc.These armed contracters companies doesnt accounce their casualty figure.No one knows their casualty figure.Everyone can estimate.So i said that remove that wrong figures alongwith its whole line.
The Department of Labor did label the chart "Defense Base Act" so I think it should include US-based mercenary companies like Blackwater/XE. If there was a credible source that said these numbers were wrong, I would consider a change to "unknown", but I would never remove it completely. Thundermaker (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways please update the casualty figure of NATO forces. 1714 killed(US:1037, UK: 280, Others: 397)

9,055+ wounded(US: 5,510[3], UK: 3,545[4]) 119.152.33.144 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please update war in Afghanistan(2001-present) article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

I have said before that I am willing to update casualty figures once a month. It has already been done for April. I will make an exception if the totals change by more than 10%, which is extremely unlikely to happen in a single month of a 100+ month war. Unless that happens, I will do this in May. Thundermaker (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.33.144 (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

As you are a key editor in this regard, I'm writing you on the following issue.

Might it make sense, in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article, to (as the strengths are totaled) total the causualties?

And have them in separate columns, as we do for strengths?

And also, for strengths there must be more info that is not reflected, as we have "totals" but some of the line items are ranges ... it is unclear whether we assumed high end, low end, or middle of each range. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be hard to put the total casualties in. The numbers are added together from different sources with different update cycles, and some of them aren't being updated at all, such as contractors. It would be possible to do a lower bound, I guess, but it would be very messy compared to adding the yearly totals at Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)‎, which some said we shouldn't do. The insurgent side has even more problems -- US has stopped releasing kill counts, and the Taliban is probably not a good source for who's insurgent vs. civilian. So at this point all we have are news articles.
There is more info on [2] which we don't put in Wikipedia, but we link to it as a reference for the totals, so people can view the breakdown by nationality if they want.
On ranges, when you add a range the result is a range; there's probably a mistake in that box because the total is given as a single number. Or maybe it's taken directly from one of the sources. Thundermaker (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AA article

But American is what the reader reads. You might want to revert your revert.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Oops! Thundermaker (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:-) --Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

query

Hi. Don't want to encumber that page, but was interested in the rationale for your oppose vote. And have yet to have my ration of coffee. Might I trouble you to explain it a bit here (I will watch thsi page). My view was a new page strips away any conclusion as to whether TK is A. And that given that some RSs (a substantial percentage, actually, and from what I've seen the highest-level US jurist and academics to speak to the subject) say it is not A, it would be wrong to put it in that pigeonhole. Many tx.--Epeefleche (talk)

Semantics first. Assassination applies to any killing of a public figure (AA is definitely that) which is not judicially-sanctioned. The targeted killing of AA could be sanctioned by US courts if Holder would go ahead with a treason trial (seems to me he's clearly guilty), but for whatever reason that's not happening. Side note -- I find the bypassing of the judicial branch by the executive very troubling. I had "hoped" it would "change" with the new administration.
Back to Wikipedia, I don't think we would benefit by having an assassinations page for immoral killings and a targeted page for moral ones. Wikipedia is not a court, and it's not for us to separate the moral from the immoral. Posting all notable views is part of the mission, and I think a single article on the subject will serve that purpose best.
BTW I've been quite impressed lately with the level of civility in Wikipedia arguments, even between people who strongly disagree about the issues. Thanks for your part in that. Thundermaker (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could go into discussing specifics if you like, but I think they are tangential to the real issue. (let me know, and I will share with you my thoughts as to what the Geneva Convention, the prior two Hague Conventions, and U.S. statutory and Israeli judicial sources have to say about this, as well as the difference between the use of assassinate in international law vs. the common layman usage). It's a fascinating stuff, but a gordion knot compared to what we have before us first. My hope is that we have an article that you and all others can add all sorts of good material to, because this is an interesting subject that attracts many different points of view. That said ....
Assassination -- per a bevy of RSs -- is different from targeted killings. I've given a handful of examples. Could give many more. But the ones I've given include the most significant work in the area by a U.S. academic, the Georgetown Law professor, and an editorial by one of the most respected U.S. jurists of the past few decades. Their view is by no means fringe.
If you let targeted killings sit as its own article, the editors can reflect all views in it (in proportion to their appearance in RSs).
If you include TK in a category that significant RSs say without equiviocation it does not belong in, that is the same as putting abortion in the murder article. Sure, some people think it is murder. Others don't. To put it in the murder article would not be appropriate. Let it have its own article, and develop from there. Indeed, nothing is lost by that. And much is lost by the reverse.
IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will read some of your refs when I have time (maybe tomorrow), but I suspect they are saying that this TK does not fit some specific legal definition of assassination. I'm trying to use more of a common definition. I'll think about what you said regarding abortion vs. murder. Thundermaker (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's interesting -- some of the sources (perhaps the ones I cite, perhaps others ... I didn't want to list 25 ... mentioned that lay people typically are not aware of the difference between the international law def'n (hint: if it is the correct def'n, the word "perdify" will appear in it) and the lay meaning. The relevant definition I would suggest is the applicable one, which would be the legal one. It is, after all, a legal concept. That, of course, makes it challenging to discuss. I appreciate your keeping an open mind. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at some of the refs, and they do seem to be talking about specific legal definitions of assassination, such as (Ford's?) executive order prohibiting it. It differs from the commonly-understood definition, I think. Splitting the section off would therefore be POV-forking.
On perfidy, US drones use "stealth" which is not the same but is related.
On murder vs. abortion, that's a minority position, but abortion is indeed mentioned on the murder page. I certainly wouldn't oppose mentioning all non-fringe positions, including the view that TK is not assassination. Thundermaker (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, assassination is a legal term, and the sources distinguish it from targeted killing on the basis of different characteristics. "Commonly understood" is not the right description of "sometimes misunderstood by laypeople who don't understand the legal meaning of legal terms such as murder and assassination, and are unfamiliar with Geneva Convention III, Protocol 1, et al." It is keeping it in a murder pigeon-hole to which all manner of RS says it does not belong that is POV. Just as putting abortion in the pigeon-hole of "murder" would be POV. Putting it in a stand-alone is not POV, as it does not ipso facto push one way or the other. The better approach on the murder/assassination page is the see also suggestion, which unlike a sub-section does not imply a sub-set.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thundermaker, why do you persist at mentioning Ford’s executive order 11905? That was to stop the CIA from supporting groups that would do the CIA’s bidding and wax political candidates in Central and South America who had marxist leanings. Like U2 flights over the U.S.S.R. doing so best served the interests of the U.S. until the cover is blown, and then it is time to openly discontinue the practice. Executive Order 11905 has absolutely nothing to do with blowing up ass-wipe terrorists who sleep in holes in the ground, like Anwar al‑Awlaki. Zero. As we plow forward into the 21st century, we are plowing new ground in dealing with terrorists. It is time to look to the present and forward from there; not backwards in the vain search for precedents that clearly don’t apply.

What Anwar is trying to do (incite others to kill innocents) is illegal according to the laws of U.S. as well as Yemen. If you don’t like what the President and the Congress are doing under the law of war and the laws of the U.S. and think it bad to kill people like Anwar (that fine, fine gentlemen he is), then speak up and say “I disagree.” If you want Yemeni authorities to seek out Anwar and ask him to please abide by Yemen’s laws as well as international laws and get him to *pinky promise* to abide by that understanding, then speak up. But I think it would be splendid if you would stop pretending to wax philosophical about legal issues like Ford’s executive order, as if Congress doesn’t have a clue about the fine legal nuances you apparently have a grasp of. The U.S. Government says “targeting killing” that is approved by a president; who has received Congressional authorization to wage a war on terror; and where said executive order has been endorsed by the National Security Council, is legal. So it is then legal. Period. And it is therefore not murder (illegal homicide). Period. Accordingly, “targeted killing” should therefore should not be lumped into any Wikipedia article that starts off with illegal homicide (murder and assassination). It is not complex so I don’t see justification to try to make it so.

It’s not hard to figure out what is mostly likely going on with the differences between R.S.s. Reliable sources that use the term “assassination” to refer to Anwar and choose not to follow the U.S. government’s verbiage (targeted killing) probably found “targeted killing” to be a cumbersome or contrived construction and were trying to be expedient and more fluid (“used car” instead of the unnecessarily awkward “pre-owned Cadillac”). The reliable sources that choose to bite the bullet and adhere to the phrasing of the U.S. government no doubt appreciate the ramifications of the dictionary definition of “assassination” and appreciate the legal implications and feel a responsibility to steer clear of any literary license on this important point. In my opinion, the reliable sources that chose to adhere to the U.S. government’s terminology are simply being more correct than the others and are the ones any encyclopedia should follow.

As this is an electronic encyclopedia where thousands of new articles are being created every few weeks, there is certainly room for another article that is properly dedicated to this new phenomenon, which—I predict—the Western World will unfortunately being seeing much more of in the future. Greg L (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bring up Ford's executive order because it is a RS which contradicts your assertion that assassination is always illegal. If that were true, Ford would have written a mere memo reminding the CIA to follow the law, as opposed to an order.
Obama is not required to abide by Ford's executive order, and I'm not trying to say he should. IMHO, AA is guilty of treason (capital), but nothing the President or Congress has done takes away his constitutional right to a speedy trial. I could go on about that, but it's not a Wikipedia issue so I won't.
The dictionary definition you linked was:

Main Entry: character assassination Function: noun Date: 1944 : the slandering of a person usually with the intention of destroying public confidence in that person

A click later I got to:

Main Entry: as·sas·si·nate Pronunciation: \ə-ˈsa-sə-ˌnāt\ Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): as·sas·si·nat·ed; as·sas·si·nat·ing Date: 1607

1 : to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously 2 : to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons synonyms see kill

— as·sas·si·na·tion \-ˌsa-sə-ˈnā-shən\ noun

— as·sas·si·na·tor \-ˈsa-sə-ˌnā-tər\ noun

...does not seem to exclude acts of war, which is what we're talking about.
The concept of assassination comes from Persia (see Hashshashin). "Targeted Killing" seems to be newspeak for "Assassination as a part of a war". In the interest of global understanding, I think we should call a spade a spade. When you don't, you get people shouting about STATE TERRORISM and such. Thundermaker (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t think I’ve written that “assassination is always illegal.” I certain didn’t ever think that and don’t think that now. As I wrote on Talk:Assassination:

As a practical matter, this topic has an important distinction from “assassination” as that term is commonly used: purposeful and targeted homicide outside the rule of law (murder) of a politician or other public figure.

Note the “commonly” bit, above. As I also wrote there:

Reliable sources such as my two-volume, unabridged World Book dictionary and Merriam-Webster, here, describe “assassination” as a form of murder.

So, indeed, “assassination” may not always be illegal. However, as the term is commonly used (defined in dictionaries), it is generally understood to be murder. Common sense tells us that most people understand “assassination” as the following (also from Talk:Assassination):

…assassination is typically understood as comprising these elements: A) it is a homicide (death of one human by the hand of another), and B) the action was carried out by some low-life individual, and C) the act was illegal, and D) the person slain was an important public figure.

We all know this is the common view of the term. Ford’s executive order pertained to special circumstances and we mustn’t try to turn an exception into the rule. Greg L (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan(Update)

Below are the deaths update and Wounded updates of Coalition forces in War in Afghanistan (2001–present).

  • 1,790 killed
    • (US: 1087, UK: 289, Others: 414)[5]
  • 10,676+ wounded
    • (US: 6,038[6], UK: 3,674[7], Canada: +400[8], Germany: 166, Australia: 154[9], Romania: 44[10], Dutch: 200)

US Contractors:338 killed, 7,072 wounded[11]


Please update War in Afghanistan (2001–present) (unsigned)

Whats about wounded figures and US contracter casualties figure.Please update both figure.All figures have their own correct refrences.UK wounded figures are 3,674, not 3,594.[12]
  • 10,822+ wounded
    • (US: 6,141[13], UK: 3,674[14], Canada: +400[15], Dutch: 200, Germany: 166, Australia: 154[16], Romania: 44[17], Estonia: 43[18])
US Contractors:338 killed, 7,072 wounded[19]
221.120.250.73, have you previously had an account on this Wikipedia? Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I am aware that per WP:DUCK this IP requesting updates may be a former account holder with a history which includes bad-faith edits. However, he is not an attention-seeking vandal, so WP:DENY does not apply. Rest assured that I am not acting as his meat-puppet, and I double check all info before adding to Wikipedia. I request that he be permitted to post WP-relevant info to my talk page for now. My hope is that open communications will lead to peace. Thundermaker (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thundermaker, if you think that my edits are bad-faith edits.Then check the refrences.I always write any information with a perfect refrence.All above calculatios have also their refrences.If you still have any doubt then tell me or check refrence carefully.
I believe that Nick suspects you are user:Gameboy1947, who made some edits which appear to be bad-faith. Yes I am checking what you say now. I think I used the April 15 version of Opherrick, I need to find May 15 to get the updated UK numbers. Thundermaker (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct, and the massive and widespread copyright violations were the main problem which lead to them being indef blocked. These copyvios have continued after the block using IP accounts (though that doesn't seem to be the problem here) so continuing blocks are needed. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, for your information, this IP is used by hunderds of peoples.And please let me free.As you block all pages which i edit.And my edits are now only and only casualty update.
Thundermaker, in this edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29&diff=365495420&oldid=365493025
You have write wrong wounded figures of UK.As according to April 15, 3,674 UK soldiers wounded but you decrease the wounded figures from 3,674 to 3,594, which is totally wrong according to MOD(Ministry of Defence).I think now MOD stop updating the casualty update.
And one thing that i also have update of Australian wounded figures, Estoniuan wounded figures, Dutch wounded figures and US contracter casualties update with its woiunded update according to US Departement of labour.[20]
I again write the wounded and casualties figures below.
  • 1,715 killed
    • (US: 1,010, UK: 290, Others: 415)[5]
  • 10,822+ wounded
    • (US: 6,141[21], UK: 3,674[22], Canada: +400[23], Dutch: 200, Germany: 166, Australia: 154[24], Romania: 44[25], Estonia: 43[26])

US Contractors:338 killed, 7,072 wounded[27]

Please update War in Afghanistan (2001-present)

  1. ^ http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/DoctrineOperationsandDiplomacyPublications/OperationsInAfghanistan/OpHerrickCasualtyAndFatalityTables.htm , http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/19DC9D5F-1390-4F4E-866C-6365CEE48F0A/0/opherrickcasualtytablesto15march2010.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/DoctrineOperationsandDiplomacyPublications/OperationsInAfghanistan/OpHerrickCasualtyAndFatalityTables.htm , http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/19DC9D5F-1390-4F4E-866C-6365CEE48F0A/0/opherrickcasualtytablesto15march2010.pdf
  5. ^ a b "Operation Enduring Freedom | Afghanistan". iCasualties. 2005-09-09. Retrieved 2010-05-24. Cite error: The named reference "icas" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Defenselink Casualty Report 2010 04 30" (PDF). Defenselink. 2010-04-30. Retrieved 2010-05-01.
  7. ^ http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/DoctrineOperationsandDiplomacyPublications/OperationsInAfghanistan/OpHerrickCasualtyAndFatalityTables.htm , http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/628B66C9-9B5F-4424-8FD5-88DC83EFB655/0/opherrickcasualtytablesto15april2010.pdf
  8. ^ http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/8533--two-canadian-soldiers-wounded-in-roadside-bomb-attack
  9. ^ http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=10110
  10. ^ http://english.defense.ro/misiuni/memoriam.php
  11. ^ "DBA CUMULATIVE REPORT BY NATION (09/01/2001 – 3/31/2009)". US Department of Labor.
  12. ^ http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/628B66C9-9B5F-4424-8FD5-88DC83EFB655/0/opherrickcasualtytablesto15april2010.pdf
  13. ^ "Defenselink Casualty Report 2010 04 30" (PDF). Defenselink. 2010-04-30. Retrieved 2010-06-01.
  14. ^ http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/DoctrineOperationsandDiplomacyPublications/OperationsInAfghanistan/OpHerrickCasualtyAndFatalityTables.htm , http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/628B66C9-9B5F-4424-8FD5-88DC83EFB655/0/opherrickcasualtytablesto15april2010.pdf
  15. ^ http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/8533--two-canadian-soldiers-wounded-in-roadside-bomb-attack
  16. ^ http://www.defence.gov.au/op/afghanistan/info/personnel.htm
  17. ^ http://english.defense.ro/misiuni/memoriam.php
  18. ^ http://www.vm.ee/?q=en/node/4080
  19. ^ "DBA CUMULATIVE REPORT BY NATION (09/01/2001 - 3/31/2009)". US Department of Labor.
  20. ^ http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/dbaallnation.htm
  21. ^ "Defenselink Casualty Report 2010 06 02" (PDF). Defenselink. 2010-06-02. Retrieved 2010-06-02.
  22. ^ http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/DoctrineOperationsandDiplomacyPublications/OperationsInAfghanistan/OpHerrickCasualtyAndFatalityTables.htm , http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/628B66C9-9B5F-4424-8FD5-88DC83EFB655/0/opherrickcasualtytablesto15april2010.pdf
  23. ^ http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/8533--two-canadian-soldiers-wounded-in-roadside-bomb-attack
  24. ^ http://www.defence.gov.au/op/afghanistan/info/personnel.htm
  25. ^ http://english.defense.ro/misiuni/memoriam.php
  26. ^ http://www.vm.ee/?q=en/node/4080
  27. ^ "DBA CUMULATIVE REPORT BY NATION (09/01/2001 - 3/31/2010)". US Department of Labor.

OK I updated the US wounded again because a report just came out, but the number you give includes one injury listed as not-Afghanistan (also not related to deployment). I fixed the UK number. I'm not sure where the German and Dutch wounded numbers came from. I left the German one there for now but if we don't find a ref for it I will delete it next month. I am not going to add Dutch without a reference. The icasualties counts change almost every day, I will do it again in July. Thundermaker (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.The German wounded figures is from this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#German
A few days before the wounded figures were 156 but now the wounded figures are 160.That figures is also [citation needed].
Anyways please remove [citation needed] from War in Afghanistan (2001–present) because the section is now looking bad.If you dont want to remove that then please remove German wounded so the casualties section become look better.
Another user in wikipedia tell me that 200 Dutch wounded in Afghanistan.So i posted Dutch wounded.Anyways still there are several wounded figures missing like French wounded figures, Danish wounded figures, Italy wounded figures, etc.I will try to find those wounded figures.
And please add the wounded figures of US private contracters which is 7,072 accoring to latest report of US departement of Labour.And please write US contratcers instead of just contracters.
US Contractors:338 killed, 7,072 wounded[1]
And please write Coalition before starting the Coalition casualties.eg.
Coalition:
  • 1,716 killed
    • (US: 1010, UK: 290, Others: 416)[2]

I think you understand that i want to say that wrrite
before the Coalition or after the refrences of Northern allience casualties.Sorry the command doesnt seen in normal article reading but if you click edit then you see the command.

Today UK MOD(Ministry of Defence) release its latest casualty report as of 15 May.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F4FDB0FC-28CB-4133-B615-D7A4E7C77F97/0/opherrickcasualtytablesto15may2010.pdf
According to report 3,819 UK soldiers wounded in Afghanistan.Please update UK wounded figures in War in Afghanistan (2001–present).

Coalition Casualties Update(Please)

Coalition:

  • 1,833 killed
    • (US: 1115, UK: 298, Others: 420)[2]
  • 12,000 wounded
    • (US: 6,355[3], UK: 3,888[4][5], Canada: 1.442+[6], Australia: 154[7], Romania: 44[8], Estonia: 43[9])

Contractors:
338 killed, 7,224 wounded[10]


Please update Coalition military casualties in below articles

Wow, lots of articles that all need the same data. I think I will attempt to use templates so that the figures can be updated in one place. Thank you for the list of pages, I will try to have it finished by July 4 (22 Rajab on the Hijri calendar), which is the 233rd anniversary of my country's independence from England. Thundermaker (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition Casualties Update(Please, please, please)

Coalition:

  • 1,867 killed
    • (US: 1133, UK: 307, Others: 427)[2]
  • 13,000 wounded

Contractors:
338 killed, 7,224 wounded[15]


Please update Coalition military casualties in below articles

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Coalition Casualties latest Update(Please)

Coalition:
Killed: 1,890 (US: 1149, UK: 309, Others: 432)[2]
Wounded: 14,000+ wounded (US: 6,623[16], UK: 3,954[17][18], Canada: 1.442+[19], Others:  +2,000)
US Civilian Contractors:
338 killed, 7,224 wounded[20]

Killed: 8,000 Wounded: 20,000+


Please update Coalition military casualties in below articles

Will do, soon. Thundermaker (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I updated 5 of those 6 pages. The last one is a little confusing, I will look at it again tomorrow. Thundermaker (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.You forget to update grand total US soldiers killed in action in United States Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan.The grand total of US Killed in action is 860 with 3 killed in action in July.Please add the 1,442 as Canadian military wounded and 2,000 as Other Coalition wounded in War in Afghanistan (2001–present).I think actually over 2000 Non US/UK and Canada soldiers wounded because i bet that German, French and Danish wounded is over 1,500 as i hear about their casualties and wounded on TV.500 for Australia, Poland, Romania, Dutch and Other Coalition forces.So i estimate Other Coalition wounded as 2,000.Please update this.This really make the casualty section as looking better and easier.Because now their are wounded figures of only 6 countries while approx. 20 countries are as a part of ISAF.SO write as Other Coalition wounded is better than write single single wounded figures. 116.71.162.2 (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gameboy1947

Please give up. Your claim that you only want to update casualties is patently false as demonstrated by edits in which you continue to add copyright violations (for example here and here and doubtlessly elsewhere). If you want to resume editing please stop evading your block and come back in six months and explain why you can now be trusted to edit following the instructions at WP:OFFER. Please also note that it's dramatically faster for me and other editors to revert your edits than it is for you to type them up so you're simply wasting your time (Thundermaker; sorry to borrow your talk page for this). Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my old edits.If i see any news on TV so i search and write that on Wikipedia.
Anyways my mostly edits are now casualties.Don't you think so?You block several articles containing casualties because i edit them.Some of the blocked articles are written in above discussions section.
Anyways i also believe that you are faster than me.Thanks.
Now as i really want to edit only and only casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.162.2 (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits are from last month, not very old. Basically you copied verbatim sentences from copyrighted news sources, which is not allowed unless you are quoting them, and that would be unencyclopedic. And then, when you change the words without having a full command of English, you are accused of dishonesty. It's going to be very difficult to make contributions directly to English-language Wikipedia articles. A better tack might be to post to a talk page, giving links and short credited quotations and then let native English speakers take it from there.
To be unblocked, you need to convince the community that you understand copyrights and copyright violations. That may be too high a bar. Some people just don't get it.
Nick, do you see a problem with my talk page suggestion? Do you consider a single sentence or headline, in quotes, with a link, on a talk page, to be a copyvio? At this point User:Gameboy1947 can't even post an unblock request because his talk page access is disabled. Thundermaker (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Thundermaker.You are really great.Now i understand the copyright rules.Now i doesn't copy any sentence from news, first i read news and understand news then i write the news summary on Wikipedia.But their is one problem i have several grammar errors in my English especially tense errors.I need anyone who tell me my grammar mistakes.
Anyways Thank-you. Thundermaker.Now i really careful about the copyright rules.119.152.95.52 (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Nick, do you see a problem with my talk page suggestion? Do you consider a single sentence or headline, in quotes, with a link, on a talk page, to be a copyvio" - Yes, as there's no context or content other than the copyright protected material and it quickly becomes a very serious problem when repeated dozens of times. This is the kind of thing which can lead to Wikipedia being sued. Gameboy is able to appeal his block via an email to the address listed at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the suggestion on your talk page, i doesn't copy any sentence on that news.I just read that news, understand that news and then i write the summary of that news.Anyways thanks for your advice.119.152.82.197 (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military Drone losses in Afghanistan and Iraq

As according to latest report of US drones crashes. Total 47 drones crashed in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which 38 were crashed by hostile action while 9 were crashes in training in US base.
While US air force said that 79 drone accident with average $1 million each.
Now i want to add these figures on these articles.
1 . Aircraft losses in Iraq war
2 . Aircraft losses in Afghanistan war
3 . Drone attacks in Pakistan

But how can i add, any idea.119.152.56.93 (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Report on US drones crashes[reply]

  1. ^ "DBA CUMULATIVE REPORT BY NATION (09/01/2001 – 3/31/2010)". US Department of Labor.
  2. ^ a b c d "Operation Enduring Freedom | Afghanistan". iCasualties. 2005-09-09. Retrieved 2010-06-01. Cite error: The named reference "icas" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Defenselink Casualty Report 2010 06 15" (PDF). Defenselink. 2010-06-15. Retrieved 2010-06-15.
  4. ^ Op Herrick casualty and fatality tables. UK Ministry of Defence
  5. ^ [ http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C6B790C9-0C28-4B9D-866D-026BB1BA66F5/0/opherrickcasualtytablesto31may2010.pdf Afghanistan Casualty and Fatality Tables] UK Ministry of Defence
  6. ^ http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2010/02/02/1580-canadian-soldiers-injured-and-killed-in-afghanistan
  7. ^ Australian wounded by insurgent gunfire. Australian Government Department of Defence
  8. ^ ROMANIAN MILITARIES IN THE THEATERS OF OPERATIONS Ministry of National Defense (Romania)
  9. ^ http://www.vm.ee/?q=en/node/4080
  10. ^ "DBA CUMULATIVE REPORT BY NATION (09/01/2001 - 3/31/2010)". US Department of Labor.
  11. ^ "Defenselink Casualty Report 2010 06 15" (PDF). Defenselink. 2010-06-15. Retrieved 2010-06-15.
  12. ^ Op Herrick casualty and fatality tables. UK Ministry of Defence
  13. ^ [ http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C6B790C9-0C28-4B9D-866D-026BB1BA66F5/0/opherrickcasualtytablesto31may2010.pdf Afghanistan Casualty and Fatality Tables] UK Ministry of Defence
  14. ^ http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2010/02/02/1580-canadian-soldiers-injured-and-killed-in-afghanistan
  15. ^ "DBA CUMULATIVE REPORT BY NATION (09/01/2001 - 3/31/2010)". US Department of Labor.
  16. ^ "Defenselink Casualty Report 2010 06 30" (PDF). Defenselink. 2010-06-30. Retrieved 2010-06-30.
  17. ^ Op Herrick casualty and fatality tables. UK Ministry of Defence
  18. ^ Afghanistan Casualty and Fatality Tables UK Ministry of Defence
  19. ^ http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2010/02/02/1580-canadian-soldiers-injured-and-killed-in-afghanistan
  20. ^ "DBA CUMULATIVE REPORT BY NATION (09/01/2001 - 3/31/2010)". US Department of Labor.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thundermaker&oldid=372196741"