User talk:Top Gun

'Bold text'Welcome!

Hello, Top Gun, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

waziristan

mislim da bi bilo najbolje opsadu spomenuti u recimo backgroundu.

Inače razmišljam da sve te Waziristan conflict-e spojimo u jedan članak--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm to treba videti u izvorima. Inače moje lično mišljenje jeste da su opsada đamije, konflikt u Vaziristanu i nasilje u Karačiju (ima i članak) sve deo jednog opšteg "anti-mušarafskog" filinga u Pakistanu koji bi mogao da preraste u građanski rat. Za sad bi ih držao odvojeno, ali ako se moje slutnje obistine, događaji će morati da se pominju POVEZANO. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kutijica

hmm napiši taj tvoj stav u diskusiju. Ja bi sad da ostane ovaj izgled ali da se nekako podesi da bude sa strane kao onaj stari. Pridružiću se u diskusiji --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

daj molim te pogle idiotizam na dnu stranice Operation Sledgehammer (2007), previše šablona. Ima još takvih str. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pa dobro, napravi. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

july9 2007 sb

Hey - re july 9/10 I'm afraid you are wrong and I won't let this one go. First of all your dates are incorrect: both antiwar (i.e. iraqslogger) and MNF state that the bombing occured on MONDAY 9 JULY (read the articles more carefully) - there is never any suggestion of an attack on 10 June.

Also as far as the casualty discrepancy is concerned, I already explained this. Different news agencies will invariably provide different figures and this is what's happened here. MNF citing US military sources reported seven dead, whereas as Iraqslogger (a much less reliable source) citing WNA reported one dead.

The simple fact is that on the SAME day, in the SAME district of Baghdad we have two separate reports of the SAME suicide bombing incident. The similarities are too great for us to assume it was not one and the same incident, and unless you can find a report suggesting two separate bombings occured, we cannot count it as two.

(Think about it - in terms of media reports if there HAD been a double suicide bombing, wouldn't that have justified greater media attention? Why would the various news agencies under-report a newsworthy item like that? Just use your common sense) Barflyuk 03:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq operations

There are currently 3 Different lists of Iraq Operations; Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operations(which is also somewhat POV), a chonological list and an alphabetical list. I have added a lot of operations to the alphabetical listing and have been updating it faithfully but I haven't updated the counter insurgency or the Chonological listing much. Before I do I recommend that we consider other methods. I figured out how to add a column sort function and added it to the Alphabetical listing. I recommend the other 2 articles be merged into the alphabetical listing and then we can rename the alphabetical listing to something more appropriate like Iraq Military Operations since 2003 perhaps. I added a blurb on the discussion page and recommended the merge for the chronological list and the counter insurgency operations page. You seem to do a lot with the Iraq war articles what do you think? --Kumioko 15:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waziristan

Nije baš da se slažem trenutno, ali neću ništa revertovati :) Ajde molim te mi pomozi da napravimo od svih Waziristan conflict-a jedan članak, to je isti konflikt sa manjim prekidima! I Sri Lanka Civil War je imao prekid od 5 god pa opet je to jedan konflikt. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sutra. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vidi Waziristan War --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dobro si napravio ipak sa povezivanjem događaja. BBC kaže: The assault (on the mosque) prompted pro-Taleban rebels along the border with Afghanistan to scrap a controversial 10-month-old peace agreement with the government. [1]

Ako možeš dio sa listom terorističkih napada (pazi, napad na vojnike nije baš teroristički!) nekako spojiti sa već postojećim člankom Terrorism in Pakistan, koji se bavi time. Također, kako je ovaj zadnji konflikt ništa doli nastavak prethodnih, trebalo bi ga eliminirati, tj. spojiti u glavni. Glavni ne bi trebao imati timeline-stil teksta tipa:

On July 12...

On July 17...

ali da ne bi izgubili te informacije dobro bi bilo da napravimo članak 2007 timeline of the Waziristan War ili sl. pozdrav, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otkriće

A ti si 87.116.171.227! Vidim već 2 mjeseca taj IP prati članke koje radiš ti (i ja neke) ali nikako da povežem. Skoro sam ušao u edit conflict s tobom par puta (nekako sam imao osjećaj više razine nad običnim anonimnim korisnikom). Pardon, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of insurgents killed in Iraq

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of insurgents killed in Iraq, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of insurgents killed in Iraq. Thank you. D4g0thur 09:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

july9/10 #2

Hey - re july9/10 I still don't want that attack duplicated. I don't accept your evidence that a different attack occured in the evening, because MNF is a specialist military source for news (not a public news agency) and so they will frequently announce attacks belatedly (in this instance they announced it the day after, which also accounts for their higher death toll as they had extra time to collect precise details). Furthermore, I have already accounted for the casualty discrepancies; and indeed when I checked antiwar it did not list two separate attacks. So let's please leave it as a single attack until any evidence arrives to the contray.

NB have you noticed it's been four days without a suicide bombing? That's very rare nowadays. Hope nothing big is in the offing. Barflyuk 06:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iraq War

Why does the image have to stay? There is already someone on the template discussion page that wants the infobox to look horizontal like other infoboxes. I personally think it wastes too much space especially on the Iraq War article. If it's a matter of going around and altering every article that has the template, it's not a problem. And we can just as well put the picture on the horizontal infobox if you insist that it just has to stay. Please discuss this issue. -- VegitaU 06:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July SB count

Hey re your comment...

>I am not counting the number of attacks but the number of bombers

...that runs contrary to what we already agreed. Regarding the 2003/4 attacks we already agreed that we should focus only on the number of separate suicide bombing incidents, rather than the number of bombers involved. If a vehicle detonates with three people on board, it is still just a single suicide bombing. Also as far as the toll is concerned we can't reasonably count attacks where no detonation occurred! For all we know the would-be suicide bomber had second thoughts and so deliberately handed himself into police custody. Therefore counting such incidents as actual bombings is totally misrepresentative.

Just remember... we want this to be an accurate compendium of the number of ACTUAL SUICIDE BOMBINGS that Iraq has endured. So if we either inflate the number of attacks, or if we show a tendency to assuming attacks involved suicide elements when the evidence doesn't support that; then all we are doing is shooting ourselves in the foot. It makes our compendium worthless.

As of 1am GMT on 30 July 2007 I count exactly 38 suicide bombings in the month of July. Barflyuk 04:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need Your Opinion

Hi Top Gun, I noticed that your quite active with ragards to articles relating to the Vietnam War, so I need your opinion on a historical matter. In 1967 the Australian army launched Operation Bribie with the objective of stopping the Viet Cong from withdrawing from the battlefield following an attack, but they failed to do so. Despite that failure the Australian army claimed victory, and as usual, the Viet Cong also claimed victory. So I wandering if you could read the sources from the links below and tell me who you believe to have been victorious? Thank you for your help.

http://www.hotkey.net.au/~marshalle/6RAR/6RAR5.html http://www.hotkey.net.au/~marshalle/6RAR/Bribie2.html Canpark 07:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your reply bro;)Here is the article on Operation Bribie, still have work to do. Help anyway you can, thanks again;) Canpark 11:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Operations

That's fine I was already in the process of doing that. I created Separate tables for each year under the Chronological page and I was in the process of copying them over. If you know a faster way that's great. I also believe that there will come a point where we may want to split them of into separate pages if not by year by something else and then link them back to the Chronological page. With the number of operations and the fact the tables take up more space and I still have A lot more operations to add prior to 2007 alone and better explanations of the operational changes over time this page will hit critical mass soon. We also need to eliminate the other Insurgency operations page that is out there.--Kumioko 20:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No but you can delete the Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operationsarticle. That information has already been incorporated. Question, when you do a merge, does it actually merge the article or just delete one? Also, What do you recommend we do with the operations that I haven't verfied the dates of yet. I know the operations exist and I have references but there are no dates.--Kumioko 00:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied what I needed into a word doc so you can merge the article. I will update the other article over the next few days as I get the time.--Kumioko 01:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

Just curious, what were the additions that you made from? I added things from the Iraq War, Philippines, Afghanistan, Somalia, Waziristan, Saudi Arabia, and 2006 Lebanon. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the "War on Terror" article is about a specific, US-led campaign. It is not about a conflict, per se, but instead can be best viewed as a super-operation. Just like operations can include sub operations, operations themselves can be included within a campaign. Russia certainly has played a part in the US-led campaign, but the Chechnyan war predates it - and therefore is not, organizationally, part of the campaign. Only things specifically started or designated as parts of the US-led campaign are parts of it.

The other template seems to include terrorist attacks from around the world, but this article does not. But for this reason, nations such as Russia or India or even Indonesia cannot be viewed as major enough to include on the main page (though they can be included on the seperate page for combatants.) As to the PKK, they are not a major combatant either. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, Indonesia is a minor combatant. Being attacked a lot doesnt mean they are participating to a large degree in one of the operations ongoing, which they are not. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is a larger conflict, this article deals specifically with the US-led campaign, which would be a component of the conflict.

And while Chechen rebel groups may be designated terror groups, that does not automatically make them a combatant in this campaign. Until a major operation is waged against them that is organizationally part of the US-led campaign, we cannot consider them a target of this campaign. And given the relationship between Russia and the United States, this seems very unlikely to occur anytime soon, given that the chechen rebels are pretty much confined to within Russia. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pazi, maknuo sam UNIFIL i Ugandu (AMISOM) iz spiska žrtava rata protiv terorizma jer oni ne učestvuju u operacijama, tj. oni su stacionirani samo zbog sprečavanja sukoba (UNIFIL zbog Libana i Izraela a AMISOM zbog različitih plemena) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TopGun, please stop reverting the article without participating in discussion. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ali u Afganistanu i Iraku učestvuju u operacijama a UNIFIL u Libanu sjedi od 1978. + UN ne učestvije u ratu protiv terorizma kao što je to napravio u Korejskom i Zaljevskom ratu. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operations

I see that you merged the articles as we discussed. Could you also please merge the Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operations article.--Kumioko 15:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

july count (please read in full)

Hi - further to my previous message your July count is still incorrect. You count 47 whereas I count 39; and I believe the discrepancy is due to the following dates. I have put in brackets the reasons why you may have miscounted these incidents...

Date: number of attacks
1st: 3 (ramadi attack likely duplicated therefore should only be counted once)
6th: 2 (ramadi detonation failed therefore is not an actual suicide bombing, just an attempted one)
7th: 2 (zayuna attack likely duplicated therefore should only be counted once)
8th: 3 (hilla attack only involves ONE single bomber - there is no indication that the three accomplices intended to commit suicide during the attack, they were only killed as the explosives that the lone bomber was wearing detonated prematurely)
22nd: 1 (taji vehicle bomb had two attackers on board, but still that counts as just one suicide bombing - there was only one VBIED)

Please don't amend the count again. My above count for July is in line with our previous discussions regarding duplicate attacks, failed attacks, and multiple-person attacks; and having counted it a number of time I am 100% certain that the correct figure is 39.

--Barflyuk 15:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Your insistence on the history page that you are counting 'the number of attackers' is completely contrary to what we have already agreed on. Remember this is a count of ACTUAL suicide bombings. A suicide bombing must involve a human element and an explosive element. You are counting, for example, the 8th July attack as being a quadruple suicide bombing, which is INSANE. Such a count is totally misleading, and it massively devalues the merit of our page. Seriously dude just think about it logically! And stop trying to artifically inflate the number of attacks! (For Christ's sake there's enough already isn't there?!)

If you change the count again and make other counts like it I will change them back, as I'm sorry but we already agreed on policy about this.

Iraq War Operations

I have a question regarding adding military operations to Wikipedia. I was previously under the impression that all named Military operations should be added but THeFEARGOD keeps putting notibility tags on the pages. I was wondering if you could add some clarification to what qualifies an operation to be added. Based on the notibility tag manu of the operations already on wikipedia (and other articles for that matter) don't meet the qualifications. Thanks in advance.--Kumioko 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty Counts

I was just wondering but where do you get the casualty count updates so quickly?--Kumioko 20:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:Terrorism

Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lal masjid

if you don't know then please don't edit.Waziristan has noting to do with lal masjid except that some of it's students were from that area.it was totally separate affair.User talk:Yousaf465 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousaf465 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lal masjid

if you don't know then please don't edit.Waziristan has noting to do with lal masjid except that some of it's students were from that area.it was totally separate affair.who said to you they fought under orders from warizatain or they were mostly from that area.GoP doesn't say that it's a part of that campaign how you can say that. It's was all Islamabad affair as the lal masjid demands was to reconstruct the mosques which GoP has demolished.so what this has to do with Wazrisatain. User talk:Yousaf465

Fatah al-Islam

Ej, ti si dodao zrtve Fatah al-Islama kako kaze Elias Mur ministar odbrane. Stavi i onu drugu brojku, koja je bila prije. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haditha

Hello , as i remeber CBS or ABC News mentioned that after the IED that destroyed the vehicle , the Marines launched full attack on the city that last 3 days and killed 36 insurgents ...i think you should add this to the Battle page .--Jonybond 10:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism casualties

Good work! Ja bi uveo nekakvu tabelu kao i u Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question about image Image:Baghdad-bombings.jpg

The Image:Baghdad-bombings.jpg has been removed from the article Operation Law and order twice already and it had been in the article for the previous five months. It is stated that the imahe has been removed because there is no soruce information. But there is. I have stated that the source of the image was antiwar.com but they have removed the image from their site. That is not my fault. The source is still antiwar.com so how can we resolve this. The imga has to stick because it represents an important event during Operation Law and order. And there is no other image of the event OR free equivalent. Please send me a reply. Thank you. Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.174.132 (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find out who the photographer or copyright holder is, and can explain why the image (not the subject of the image, the image itself) is historically significant, then the image can be kept. Otherwise, it needs to be deleted. --Carnildo 03:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka

Odluicno, procitati cu ih sve! Dodaj Operation Definite Victory tj. pogledaj ima li jos bitaka (ja sam bio napravio i jednu pomorsku al zaboravih de je). --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nasao sam je: Battle of Point Pedro. Ako imas vremena sredi molim te. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

evo jos jedne: [2] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoj Battle of Jaffna izgleda da je isto bio kraj Point Pedra, stavio sam CNN-ov link vidi: Battle of Point Pedro (2006), jedno smo znači riješili. Za ovo drugo, probaj Battle of Jaffna (2006), a Battle of Jaffna da bude nekakav disambiguation u slučaju ako napišeš još članaka ako je bilo tako velikih bitaka za Đžafnu (npr. sad ću lupnuti - "Battle of Jaffna (19xx) . --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dobro. Nadam se da neces pustiti bez referenci. Takodje, šta sa Battle of Jaffna? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dodaj reference još bar ili ti trud neće imati vrijednosti ako obrišu jednog dana. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A mozes i Bandaranaike Airport attack --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zrtve u Vaziristanu

Ovako. Revertovao sam jednu tvoju izmenu gdje si ubacio 7 civila poginulih u Baludžistanu. To ima poseban konflit odvojen od onog u Vaziristanu: Balochistan conflict.

Pazi da ako budes update-o zrtve da postoji mogucnost da ne bude vazece. Npr. referenca kaze 300 zrtava ti dodas 20 ali to mozda nema referencu. Poz, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tursko-Kurdski konflikt

Ne bih. To bi u ovom trenutku bilo jako POV i bez referenci--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Inace, dobro bi bilo da bacis oko na nove članke 21 October 2007 cross-border attack on Turkey, October 7, 2007 Yüksekova incident --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Firstly I humbly appreciate your edits for the Sri Lankan conflict related topics. But I see that your {{Campaignbox Sri Lanka massacres}} conflicting with the deleted template {{State terrorism in Sri Lanka}}, while your {{Campaignbox Sri Lankan Civil War}} conflicting with {{Sri Lankan Conflict}}. Anyway your campaign box in Military operations of the Sri Lankan Civil War seems to be great but if you agree with me for the above mentioned problems please place a {{db-author}} on those respective template pages because the traditional way of deleting templates takes out our valuable time. Cheers --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 13:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nova bitka u Mogadišu

..je u tijeku: Battle of Mogadishu (November 2007) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War on terrorism infobox

I think you might be interested in reading what I wrote at Talk:Taliban_insurgency#Combatant_flags--victor falk (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few points

The official policy states that when unsourced content is challenged the burder of proof is not on the one challenging it, it is on the one defeding it, hence you. See WP:PROVEIT.
Please do not remove my tags from unsourced articles, if you continue to do so you will be reported.
I have tried to discuss with you but you refused to do so. Your violations of the 3 revert rule on War on Terrorism have been reported to WP:AN/3RR.
After your block expires please try to discuss rather than revert war over unsourced content.
Please comment on content and not the contributor.

--Sir Anon (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ja mislim da je bolje da uopce ne bude lista kombatanata na strani WoT, bolje nego 30 izlistanih drzava. Po meni, nebi trebao uopce imati kutijicu jer je, kao Hladni rat rat samo po imenu, zbog POV americke administracije koja je dala totalno nepovezanim ratovima isti pridjev (npr. Rat u Libanu 2006. nemoze u isti kos kao i Rat u Libanu 2007. ili Afganistanski rat - jer Sijitski Hezbolah se ogradio od al Kaide i cak osudio Sunitsku grupu Fatah el-Islam. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Za WoT casualties malo pripazi, nemas argumenata ako ne das povjerljiv izvor, drugi useri ce te uvijek na temelju toga moci osudjivati. Jedna mala kritika sa moje strane: nije dobro da se previse igras sa brojem zrtvama - to moze zakomplicirati stvari jer npr. ako u izvoru pise 1,000, a ti si u medjuvremenu izbrojao jos 50, i napises 1,050 - u izvoru dalje pise 1,000 i neko ce to skuzit i revertovat. On nece znat kako si ti to uspio (ja znam da je pouzdano) i smatrat ce originalnim istrazivanjem. A brojevi zrtava se izdaju svakih par mjeseci pa nemaoras brinuti - pogotovo kod malih ratova. Medjutim, dobra ti je List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq! Trebalo bi vise takvih, pogotovo u Somaliji (za Etiopljane-jer nezele priznat gubitke)

Glasao sam protiv brisanja Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Terrorism: Allies jer mi se ne cini fer, mada se i ja nebih složio u nekim stvarima sa clankom.

I ja sam bio blokiran, nadam se da neces odustati od rada. Ako mislis da sam nesto krivo shvatio slobodno me ispravi.

Pozdrav, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding War on Terrorism: Allies AfD

I have withdrawn my support to delete your page. Please have a look at the proposal by Victor falk to move and restructure this page as War on Terrorism: Combatants in order to present the full information on this in an unbiased manner.--Sir Anon (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Swat

Ja bih obadve bitke spojio u jedan članak, jer pauza od 8 dana ne mora znacit da su to dve bitke. Vidi Battle of Mogadishu (2007) (ona u Martu) kakve pauze je imala. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

slazem se sa tvojim proračunom (koji je vjerojatno točan) al uz broj koji si naveo MORA biti izvor sa baš tim brojem. Kažeš ((600+26)-(321+98))=207. Ja ću to shvatiti, ali čitalac neće nigdje naći u izvorima taj broj. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vidi treći period: civilne zrtve 1,378. Kliknem na referencu i pise 1300. Neki čitaoc će se pitati "a otkud ovih 78 ako u referenci piše 1,300? Imam dobru ideju. Napiši 1,300 confirmed<ref>sa tom referencom<ref> + 78 reported (bez reference ili 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 - poredane reference)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Palestinian prisoners.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Palestinian prisoners.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Battle-3t.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Battle-3t.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 06:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoja strana

..malo sam ti sredio, žao mi je bilo gledati imena članaka bez linka. Neznam zašto su neki crveni. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..hm. ako nije u redu revertuj. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Musa Qala

Hi! Just a quick message to let you know why I reverted your edit on the casualties. There was only one British soldier killed in the actual battle, Sgt Lee Johnson, whom I knew - I took the photo of him shown on the article. I am involved with the HQ of his regiment and am fully aware there were no other UK deaths from the engagement. Had there been so it would have been published here:- UK Ministry of Defence Fatalities list. Can you supply a name or a reference for the US soldier you claim was killed in the battle I have not been able to confirm there was one? I suspect news media reports are confusing news reports of the death of a British Territiorial Army soldier from a few days previous, which only appeared that day as being from the battle, which is incorrect. See the article Talk page. Richard Harvey (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pozdrav

I tebi, hvala! Za puno vise clanaka u 2008! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Žrtve rata u Vaziristanu

Vidi War in Waziristan. Pod Casualties. Dodao sam kutijicu u kojoj mozes dodavati zrtve, da ne mora članak imati 4 x infobox military conflict, to ni jedan članak nema. Ionako se sve ponavljalo u njima osim žrtava. Tako ćeš sada na miru dodavati tamo brojke. Sources dodaj iza onog malog "sources" i molim te da ne pises odvojeno poginuli vojnici/poginuli policajci. To je apsolutno nebitna podjela, zato sam napisao Pakistani forces a to se misli na oboje. Provjeri brojke koje sam ja dodao i ispravi.

Pozdrav i sretan božić--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poginuli u Irackom ratu

Pusti Iraq Body Count, jučer je izašao najprecizniji broj do sada: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7180055.stm --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sto se tiče napada na Marez i Nasiriju (Italijani), to NISU teroristički napadi nego legitimna diverzija protiv okupatora. I nema potrebe spajat ona dva napada na đamije u jedan članak.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War in Waziristan

Baci oko na talk page. Poz --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jedan prijedlog: tablicu sa zrtvama u Pakistanu bi mogao podijeliti na godine, ne na periode. Imaš dobar izvor ovdje za Vaziristan, ali i za NWF Province, što ide skupa. Naravno počni od 2004. Svakako, na tebi je odabir. Pozdrav, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rat u Somaliji

Takodje, volio bih cuti komentar i savjete za ovaj moj način vođenja evidencije: 2008 timeline of the War in Somalia. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bez izvora nemože stajati informacija. Neko će vidjeti 4 a u izvoru dalje piše 2, misliće da smo ludi.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine and Kosovo

diff Just so you know, Avala's link talks about a Committee, not a Ministry. Read both sources again. The Ministry has the official say on this, while a Committee needs to be backed by the majority of parliament. Therefore, Ukraine's position on Kosovo is still unclear. — Alex Khristov 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo > Other Entities > The European United Left–Nordic Green Left political group in the European Parliament

Hi, I had originally deleted The European United Left–Nordic Green Left political group in the European Parliament from Other Entities as there is no reason why this smaller political group of the European Parliament is mentioned and not the others. Also, we should then start listing all the views of all the groups of all the other international parliamentary assemblies. I suggested deleting; do you have a reason why it should be kept to the list of Other Entities? Thanks, --Scotchorama (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kosovo Forces fatalities

An editor has nominated Kosovo Forces fatalities, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo Forces fatalities and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PKK and Turkish casualties

Hey Top Gun, What do you think about separating out the PKK and Turkish army casualties? Right now you're putting them with the regular insurgents casualties from the Iraq war. I'm thinking it might be more helpful to separate them out, similar to the way we're currently separating out the al Qaeda casualties from the insurgents. The main reason I think this might be helpful is due to the increased levels of violence in that part of the conflict-with the Turks actually invading with ground troops in their latest offensive. Any thoughts on this are welcome, since you're the "casualty tracker" guy. Cheers. Publicus 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mislim da nije u redu da navodimo samo Turski vid žrtava (Iraq War). Moj savjet: čekati nezavisan broj. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ne radi mi internet, molim te provjeravaj da na 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq ne bude samo turski broj poginulih. Hvala , TheFEARgod --78.2.35.167 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Babes

Hey TopGun. Theres no need getting all personnel with me. Just calm down mate, go watch an episode of Star Trek or sumet, release all your anger by watching fictional aliens getting killed yeh. Theres no need to discriminate against me because of my age and saying "you shouldn't be involving yourself with things like this and have no right speaking on this discussion page because you are just a 17-year-old kid who really doesn't know what he is talking about." thats just fascist and not a very nice think to say. Its a bit like me saying "you have no right here, because your Serbian and this is English Wikipedia, not Serbian Wikipedia" But luckily im not like that. I think its fair for me to say that we should all be equal here and ive got as much right to be here as you do. I thought you knew about the 5 pillars of wikipedia, as its on the top of your talk page. Obviously not. Also please stop criticizing me for things you don't even know about me. Have you got any evidence to suggest that i don't know what i'm talking about? Because i would love to see it. And Ive not been attacking any of them users you have named. In fact ive been working with Avala, and im pretty sure Avala will back me up when i say I'm neutral on this article. One last thing TopGun, if you have any problems just let me know. I'll help you out, you can have my shoulder to cry on. Cheers mate x x x x x x x x x x x
Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 timeline of the War in Somalia

Opisani događaj ([3]) dogodio se 5 Marta, i već je naveden pod 5. mart. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ramadi 2004

Hello, Top Gun. I noticed you changed the Battle of Ramadi (2004) article back to a pyrrhic victory. I've reverted it, because it simply isn't. A pyrrhic victory implies that the victory was won at the cost of the majority of the victor's combatants. 16 killed and 25 wounded, while a tragic loss of life, isn't in any way crippling to the combat effectiveness of either the Marine battalion or Army regiment involved. Hence, it's an indecisive victory, because as you stated in your edit summary, they did lose the city shortly thereafter. Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shia unrest

Odlicno. Provjeri nove vjesti, mnogo poginulih u vazdusnom napadu u Hilli--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evo al-Sadrovci ušli u Nasiriju.[4] probaj stavit naslov teksta u google da nađeš link koji nije reutersov, jer se on vremenom gubi.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

borbe su prilicno zestoke. vidi sliku --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

izvjestaj od 22 mrtvih je od 29 marta, moj BBC link sa 120 mrtvih je od 30 marta.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

molim te, post-campaign clashes nam ne trebaju, oni ce se desavati svakog dana, pa necemo jos mjesec dana listati incidente na toj stranici? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Mahdi Army fighters take up positions during the street fighting in Basra.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Mahdi Army fighters take up positions during the street fighting in Basra.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help on another Kosovo Article

I am planning to do an article on the World's Response, (or lack thereof) to the Independence of Kosovo. I think that you will find what I have to say totally NPOV. If interested, e-mail me: ilya_7@yahoo.com Please type in "Response to Kosovo" in the subject line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricWarrior (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism

If you can find me these references that you talk about (other Wikipedia articles are NOT reliable sources even if they are referenced themselves) then we can have a proper discussion. As it is you are re-inserting completely unreferenced material - there is no topic to argue about, one of the founding principles of the whole website is verifiability and it states very plainly: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed".--Sir Anon (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koment

Deshta met vet si e ndjen veten per Shqiptart qi e kan marr pavarsin e jo si ju shkijet? Cka mendon? Kosova2008 (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only asked you a simple question, I thought you spoke Shqip. You didn't have to insult me or whatever that said. Also to translate the above, "Just wanned to ask ya how you feel about those Albanians that got independence and not like you Serbs [who didnt]?" Kosova2008 (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We both know that Kosova is independent. I just think you are in denial. Also nearly 40 countries have recognized...all the powerful ones, not the weak and crappy ones like Mexico, Indonesia or Russia. As far as electricity, it comes from somewhere called KEK (Kompania Elektrike e Kosoves) --- Serbian? I assume you also believe that Kosova is the cradle of Serbia? How is that possible since 17:1 is the ratio of Kosovars to Serbs. Learn your propaganda better, and have fun in Belgrade (i presume you live there). Kosova2008 (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sound so ridiculous that I thought I'd copy and paste what you wrote so you could read it as well, here you go: Kosova IS the cradle of Serbia, and always will be despite your burning down of our churches. In regards to that ratio of 17:1, that was not always the case. At the very least it was 2:1 until 15 years ago when you butchers started killing us and expelled the majority of our people from Kosovo, and then you started breeding like rabits. In regards to the ooooo-powerfull ones that have recognised you. Your great saviour the U.S. can't take care of itself why do you think they will take care of you. Their economy is in recesion and they are getting their asses kicked in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what's this Kompania Elektrike e Kosoves? Some backwater electricity plant from the stone ages? You guys are the ones in denial. Don't know if Russia is so weak and crappy since their word will be the final one in the U.N. in regards to your supposed independence. And Indonesia crappy? Don't know if you should talk like that about the country with the biggest muslim population in the world. That is if you want to be accepted by the Muslims of the world, which you are evidently not. Wake up my man, the U.S. is no longer the only super power in the world. Russia is standing back up on it's feat thanks to Putin. And the U.S. is slowly going down in flames like the Roman Empire. And, you are wrong on that last bit too. I am not from Belgrade but from Kragujevac, capital of Shumadia. Now go get ready because, it may take a year, or 5 years, or even 10 years, but we are coming back and when we do you are done for. And the next time there will be no NATO to save your asses. KOSOVO IS SERBIA! (Top Gun) Kosova2008 (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC) PS Kosova is Kosovar!![reply]

I'm glad you're satisfied. I haven't retreated to deragatory propaganda like you have. We all know that "Nokia është Serbia" or in your language (Nokija je Serbija). Kosova2008 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Sadr City

Neznam da li je od 2004. u tijeku opsada..., ili da li se to moze tako nazvati. Mislim da je članku mjesto u članku Sadr City-spajanje. Tako bi, po meni, bilo najbolje. Ili ne? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Mahdi Army fighters take up positions during the street fighting in Basra.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Mahdi Army fighters take up positions during the street fighting in Basra.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 06:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but that's not enough. We still don't know who created the video ("insurgent" is very vague). The Youtube URL at least would be helpful. Superm401 - Talk 06:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, "How the hell should I know who created it", I could just as easily ask you why the hell Wikipedia should host a video without knowing where it's really from? NPOV does not override image copyright policy. Superm401 - Talk 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that "it was distributed on the net for propaganda purposes. So anybody can use it." is not a valid license. Insurgent legal problems are not a factor for Wikipedia. There's no explicit license, so it's non-free and can only be used under fair use. With the inclusion of the Youtube URL, it's in about the same position as many other fair use images. It's semi-justifiable legally, and will probably remain unless a free replacement can be found. Superm401 - Talk 20:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

Please read WP:TROLL. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing all around that "KOSOVO IS SERBIA" in nonsensical Wikipedia-unrelated manner is trolling and/or spamming. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pax, please do not keep my talk-page in mind when you are issuing this warning. It was a discussion and I am okay that Top Gun wrote that, it is a discussion and I take his/her opinion equal as mine. Thank you. Ari Kosova2008 (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:War on Terrorism#Compromise proposal

Please have a look.--Sir Anon (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

The Terrorism WikiProject
April 2008 Newsletter

News

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was made a Featured Article
Omar Khadr has an ongoing peer review as it begins the slow crawl towards Featured Article status

Trials have begun this month in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Benbrika affair and 2006 Toronto terrorism case, each article could use a good vetting, and the articles on specific alleged terrorists are desperately in need of some clean-up.
Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein had his case overturned by the Iraqi courts and was ordered released, although the US military says they will not release him.
China announced that they had disrupted a plot targeting the 2008 Summer Olympics, while detractors claim it was fabricated.
The bail hearing for Abdullah Khadr, fighting extradition to the United States, is scheduled for April 29
Former Turkish Member of Parliament Leyla Zana is sentenced to two years imprisonment for praising Abdullah Öcalan.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list needs votes on whether or not it should be kept on Wikipedia.

Archives • Discussion

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty figures

Hello,

As you probably know, I've been working on the Operation Phantom Phoenix article and I'm just curious where you kept the tally of casualties for that operation. I'm not disputing your figures, I'd just to know how you kept track of them. Lawrencema (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mogadishu

Evo malo sam preradio. Morao sam stavit da bitka počinje Aprila 19, jer tako svi izvori kažu. Masovnim napadom na etiopske patrole. Ono prije su rutinski napadi, ako pogledaš timeline razumijećeš. Također stavio sam da je (zasad) kraj bitke April 20, jer kažu izvori sada je mirno. Naravno, ako dođe (vjerojatno) druga runda istaknut ćemo. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a, bravo brz si--TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de, u BiH?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Šri Lanka

možda će te interesirati brojevi: http://www.france24.com/en/20080424-over-200-slain-sri-lankas-bloodiest-battle-18-months-0 Tamo je pakao --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

obavezno stavi u bokmarks, to je nova agencija: evo jos http://www.france24.com/en/20080425-sri-lanka-lost-185-soldiers-jaffna-battle-military-sources-0 --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan Civil War- trebao si tipa prijaviti za WP:3RR --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving disputes

Re this comment: It's not productive to continue to post to the noticeboard after the situation there has been dealt with (i.e. admins have protected the pages). Talking about who reverted first won't solve anything. Please assume good faith and try to establish a positive, cooperative working relationship with Watchdogb so that you can work towards consensus by discussing things on the article talk pages. If necessary, see dispute resolution. As soon as you agree with each other about the disputed article content, you can use {{editprotected}} to request an edit to a protected page, or request that the page be unprotected. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have questions or need help. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement

This is a friendly notice. You may have overlooked that the article Sri Lankan Civil War, which you reverted, is under the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement subject to edit restrictions. This means, among other things, that it is not allowed to revert to the same version more than once a day. Since there was also an other account who performed the same reversions as you, please be advised that this restriction is on a per version basis, not on a per account basis. Please therefore best avoid reverting articles that are subject to this agreement. As the blue box specifies, please instead report any issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Thank you for your understanding and future cooperation. --— Sebastian 08:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dobro je cak proslo, tip je prijavljen na noticeboardu o Šri Lankanskom sukobu. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply on my page. I am not planning on edit war anymore and if you feel that you have added the right information to wikipedia, then please do so. However, I have adapted a new policy in wikipedia after this warning. I do not intend to have any more edit wars because I am going to focus on improving articles and discuss rather than try to engage in edit wars. Anyways, sorry for any inconvenience I have caused you by edit warring. Watchdogb (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Unprotect article

Partially resolved? What does that mean? Anyhow, feel free to request unprotection at WP:RFUP. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadr City

Jel to možemo nazvat opsadom? Evo ti još jedan članak http://www.france24.com/en/20080430-least-925-killed-iraqs-sadr-city-clashes Pogledaj campaignbox WoT tamo sam nešto odgovorio --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i vidi što sam našao ovaj članak List of military strikes against presumed terrorist targets, trenutno je očajan. Treba ga linkovati --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basra

Premjestio sam post-operation basra clashes u clanak Iraq Spring Fighting of 2008 jer vise nema smisla nastavljati tamo. Ako bude nova bitka u basri najbolje novi clanak jer je previse vremena proslo. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jemen

Template_talk:Campaignbox_War_on_Terror: možda si Šijitsku pobunu koja nema nikakve veze sa ratom protiv terorizma zamijenio sa napadima al-Qaide u Jemenu koji jesu dio WoT. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ofanziva

Izgleda da se nešto sprema http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7387960.stm --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liban

Drugi put, molim te, pogledaj u Portal:Current events dal clanak vec postoji :) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Campaignbox_War_on_Terror#About_adding_new_wars --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dobar argumenat, nisam se sjetio Fatah-Hamas conflict :) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libanonska Vojska je neutralna, nemože biti u kutiji jer: a) ta 2 poginula ne moraju biti u izravnom sukobu sa militantima, b) nema službeni mandat za ulazak u sukobe, c) izvori ne govore o ulasku u konflikt: ta 2 su poginula, ali vojska u Bejrutu ne puca uopće na militante.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stavio sam sve poginule u jedan broj, zbog zbrke. Naravno da bi bilo dobro imati sve brojeve, al zato predlažem da napraviš zbrajanje kao u mom članku 2008 timeline of the War in Somalia (tabela, broj poginulih ispod datuma...). Probaj sa Timeline of the 2008 unrest in Lebanon. Pomoći ću ti, svakako. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

da ne tražiš brojeve: [5] i još nešto, arhiviraj si talk page--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 unrest in Lebanon

Regarding your editing. It is important to leave an edit summary, no matter how obvious your edit may seem. This is especially true if you remove material. This is extraordinarily true if you remove references. Check out Wikipedia:Edit_summary#Recommendations for why I'm bringing this fundamental idea to your attention. Have a great day. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 06:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

predlažem tabelu na vrh. Zanima me kada će biti kraj nekakve "prve runde" da napravim mapu. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism casualties

About the french casualties, what do you mean by Contractors ? The total is wrong: 49 french died, military or civilians, mostly tourists. Here is the timeline, in French:

2001 1 employé (11/09/01) USA 2 journalistes (12/11/01) Afghanistan 2002 1 touriste (11/04/02) Tunisie 11 employés (08/05/02) Pakistan 4 touristes (12/10/02) Indonésie 2003 1 journaliste (20/03/03) Iraq 2004 2 contacteurs (06/01/04) Iraq 1 civil (11/03/04) Espagne 1 contacteurs (14/06/04) Iraq 1 combattant islamiste (17/07/04) Iraq 1 combattant islamiste (17/09/04) Iraq 1 employé (26/09/04) Arabie 1 combattant islamiste (20/10/04) Iraq 2 militaires (21/10/04) accident Afghanistan 2005 2 touristes (07/04/05) Egypte 1 civil (07/07/05) UK 1 militaire (17/09/05) Afghanistan 2006 1 militaire (03/03/06) Afghanistan 1 militaire (15/05/06) Afghanistan 2 militaires (20/05/06) Afghanistan 2 militaires (24/08/06) Afghanistan 1 agent DGSE (21/11/06) Iraq 2007 4 touristes (26/02/07) Arabie 1 militaire (25/07/07) Afghanistan 1 militaire (23/08/07) accident Afghanistan 1 militaire (21/09/07) Afghanistan 4 touristes (24/12/07) Mauritanie

Kormin (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cease-fire broken

12 May, there where new clashes between the al-Mahdi Amry and Iraqi security forces 2 killed, 25 wounded in clashes in Sadr city .Here, more clashes: U.S. troops repel attacks in Baghdad slum, kill 3.The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here, more clashes.[6] The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

What's this? I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; I'm sure you know now that I was actually talking to that user, not myself. Best anyways. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of 2005 Hit convoy ambush

A tag has been placed on 2005 Hit convoy ambush, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hit convoy ambush

No need to fly off the handle. Firstly, if you've read my CSD notice on the page (which i'm assuming you have, since you posted exactly the same message there as you did on my talk page, rendering your message moot) you would have seen that i dont "consider it nonsense" wikipedia just doesnt have a template for non-notable skirmishes. Secondly, a platoon is 30-50 men, not 17, and is military rather than PMC based. if the skirmish invoked debate about japanese PMC involvement, put that in the article so said article is more relevant. Iraq skirmishes such as Operation Planet X which are in a small area/involve few men simply redirect to the list of coalition operations; even battles like Operation Abilene involving brigade-sized units simply have a place on a list rather than an individual article. Ironholds (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching the articles talk page, i do so for any article i nominate for csd. I've responded in a bit more detail on said talk page, anyhoo. I meant moot for me, not for the other users; since i was watching the talk page i saw it twice. The iraqi insurgent numbering is marked as "Unknown", so i have no IDEA if the group was platoon sized. Since the attack used IED's, the number of insurgents doesnt neccessarily have to be platoon sized; a small group could just hose down anyone who pokes their head up over the wreckage. My point with the PMC is this; If you read the Blackwater, for example, article, any attacks are given in a timeline, since they are not notable enough for their own page. this whole article could be summarised as "on may 9th 2005, 16 contractors were killed and one captured when the convoy they were escorting was ambushed"; the issue is its notability for its own page, not its inclusion within wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Hit convoy ambush

I appreciate we disagree on whether it should be on wikipedia or not, but i've just corrected a lot of spelling and have a request; could you put it all through some kind of spellchecker next time? thanks. Ironholds (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan

Bilo je teških sukoba u gradu Abyei. Dal bi bilo dobro imati poseban članak? Po meni, samo od Maja 2008. (kada su uključene vladine snage protiv separatista), a ne prije (militanti protiv separatista) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

izolirani događaj poput Battle of Malakal? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPLA je organizacija (bivši gerilci) koja prolazi transformaciju u regularnu armiju buduće države South Sudan. Izgleda da je konvencionalno naoružana (T-55, oklopni transporteri...) tako da bi pogranične borbe mogle biti žestoke, nešto kao Etiopija i Eritreja. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glupi IP

Pozdrav,

postoji jedan zanimljivi članak Operation Red Wing. Našla se jedna IP budala (vjerojatno Amerikanac) koji želi smanjiti gubitke te miče pad helikoptera iz kutijice. Kaže "nema presedana" za to. Dobro bi bilo da baciš oko.

Hvala.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Red Wing

Battle of the Bulge - Probably the most famous individual conflict in WWII. Show me where in the casualties and losses section it shows how many tanks, airplanes and vehicles were destroyed. It doesn't. Nor do the OVERWHELMING majority of articles on individual battles on this project. So your edit summary, was totally wrong. Sorry. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zrtve

List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq - razmisljao sam kako je steta sto ne postoji tako nesto i za Iracke policajce/vojnike --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A, nista, ima vec http://icasualties.org/oif/iraqideaths.aspx --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan

Stavio sam da je to nova faza, jer je bilo dosta pauze.

Mislim da bi trebao napraviti stranicu timeline.. kao Somalija i Libanon da imaš dobar pregled gubitaka. Za početak, poginula su 2 vojnika i 1 gerilac. Ne zaboravi stavit citate (općenito) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afganistan

Dodaj izvore za helikoptere--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Čad

Šta je ovo? http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/07/02/africa/OUKWD-UK-CHAD-MUSLIM.php --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somalija i Kolumbija

Super si tio napravio dok nisam imao internet.

Dodaj civile poginule 2. jula, pa nije samo 1.. [7]
Obavezno dodati referencu za 3. jul ili brišem..
Slažem se za Kolumbiju. Iskoristi te reference --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beletwein

Kad bolje pogledam, nije samo u tom gradu bila bitka...--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baidoa

Siege of Baidoa --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irak

Jel se ja to varam ili se rat polako privodi kraju? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

u biti neće totalno završiti, nego po meni, kao i Algerian Civil War, prijeći na low-level warfare kao Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present), sa mogućim ustankom šijita za vrijeme napada na Iran --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo, bitka

Jel znaš nešto o ovome? Poznato mi je odnekud al nisam baš upućen. Bez referenci je postojanje članka u opasnosti.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

On 16 July, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Battle of Wanat, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Banyan Tree 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka

Listen Watchdogb I don't want to start another edit war with you again, the source I put says 5,000 killed & 5,000 remain, at least another 3,000 wounded that is 13,000, I even left the 3,000 number with it's reference so I put an estimate of their strenght 3,000-13,000. The 3,000 number is in any case crazy but I left it. In any case the Tigers always say their number of dead at the end of each year so I think we should leave the number of 5,000 for now and when the Tigers say their casualty number at the end of the year then we should make the apropriate changes. (Top Gun)

Thank you for not edit warring. The source you have given does not claim that the total number of LTTE strength is 13,000. In fact, what you are doing here is called WP:OR because the source does not say that the Tigers estimated strength is believed to be 13,000. For anyone to claim that the LTTE has 13,000 soldiers means that there must be a reference that says exactly that and the given citation does not claim this. I think you are quite familiar with the lies and number games that goes on in the Sri Lankan Civil war. First the Sri Lankan Army claims that there was 3,000 total LTTE members. Months later the SLA says that the army has killed over 5,000 and injured 3,000. Days later they say that LTTE still have 5,000 soldiers. I think it's clear that the Sri Lankan Army propaganda is clearly at work here and the truth of the matter is that no one, except the LTTE, know the total strength of the LTTE. So we have two options here; We can either leave the 3,000 (as this is the number that is widely quoted in all mainstream media) or we can say that the total number of LTTE soldiers are unknown. I know you want to add the 13,000 into the article but if you think about it is buying into the SLA propaganda. I can almost guarantee you that in another 3 months the Sri Lankan Army is going to revise the number again and then we will have to change the 13,000 to something closer to 20,000. Couple of months later this number will be revised again to be something like 25,000. So are we going to have a number like 3,000 - 25,000 ? That seems pretty un-encyclopedic. Watchdogb (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Operation Jayasikurui as a user is twisting facts. The fact was the Tamil Tigers won the battle. Can you take care of this as you seem more acquainted with the topic. Watchdogb (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Top Gun. With those problem aside, I must say that your doing a great job covering the Battles of Sri Lanka. Keep up the good work. Also, I feel that the Battle of the FDL article can be discussed better over email - do you mind sending an email ? Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 timeline Somalia

Evo kako meni se ne vidi: http://img255.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aaaaaaaaaazn1.jpg , na oba 2 kompjutera --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nego to nije bitno (naravno da vjerujem da tebi radi stranica), nego što se tiče broja poginulih: poanta cijelog članka 2008 timeline of the War in Somalia je da koristi brojke koje su potvrđene od nezavisnih strana: novinari+očevici (tipa 2 soldiers have died, eyewitnesses said), i brojke koje je priznala zaraćen strana (tipa ICU said it lost two fighters...). Izjave kao Ethiopian troops claim they have killed 78 insurgents ne dolaze u obzir jer nisu dobile nezavisnu potvrdu. To može eventualno ići u neki članak bitke. Tako ako etiopljani kažu da su ubili 20, a islamisti priznaju gubitak 2, ubacim 2 i tako dalje. Tu je sva caka neutralnosti. Tako sam ostavio tvoje brojke u tekstu, ali takve nepotvrđene brojke ne smiju biti u tablici.

Pozdrav, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of casualties...

Tvoje list of.. stranice su legendarne. Dobro bi bilo imati i List of Pakistani security forces fatality reports 2004-present i List of insurgent fatality reports in Pakistan (ili čak List of fatality reports in the War in North-West Pakistan - da bude za sve), već kad si i to pratio. Pazi samo kada npr. napišeš da su u napadu poginula 4 vojnika, pa onda saznaš da se broj popeo na 5 da updateiraš i referencu. Pozdrav, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broj žrtava i kutijica

Vidio sam da si dodao sve žrtve misije AMIS. To me podsjetilo kako bi dobro došla kutijica. Šta kažeš? Isto sam stavio u UNAMID i Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. Ako se sjetiš gdje bi još dobro pasala, dodaj. Pozdrav--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Battles and Operations of the Iraq War

Sir, with all due respect I think it's beneficial to leave that portal in the Iraq War battles pages.

1) It makes the battles easier to navigate, people can just move their cursor to the right and click on the next battle. 2) It gives a better feel for the flow of the events when you can click through the major battles in chronological sequence. 3) It doesn't really clutter up the page because it's minimized. 4) I know you can go back to the Battles & Operations page however that page is poorly organized and it's hard to pick out the major operations. 5) Every page linked to under Terrorist attacks of the Iraq War has the portal, so the battles should have it to. 6) Other conflict pages such as the Falklands, Vietnam and the war in Afghanistan pages link to the

Let's add the

portal to all the battle pages it links to.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War might need some cleanup and filling out though, seems a lot of operations have little info on that page. Also might it be a good idea to separate combat and humanitarian operations on that page? Right now they are all listed together. I'll take a crack at it after working on some more Iraq battles.(Hillah, Al Kut, Najaf)WDW Megaraptor (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 South Ossetia War

Please be sure to use a meaningful edit summary with each edit - especially in a contentious article as this. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molba

Idem na izlet; molim te da updateaš 2008 timeline of the War in Somalia. Pozdrav, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Tskhinvali. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. __meco (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog#Tskhinvali

If you don't answer me (on my talk page) on these accusations towards me, you are officially a dirty liar. Ready? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Battle of Tskhinvali. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk • contribs)

Hello, Mr Thief (reformed, I hope)

Some new messages for you at the talk page of the Battle of Tskhinvali and I suggest you read them. Also, remember to keep chronology (example: "Georgian army managed to take control of the city after a few hours of intense urban warfare. Hand-to-hand fighting occured (...)" is obviously wrong). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more productive if everything related to the article was discussed at the article talk page. As about copyright violations, one should provide a supporting diff together with the message.Biophys (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing figures

You appear to be changing numbers in several articles including Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines‎([8]), War in North-West Pakistan‎([9]), and 2008 timeline of the War in Somalia‎([10]). None of those edits have any supporting references. Please provide references or your changes or they are likely to be considered vandalism and may result in another block. Thank you. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 3 days for edit warring. Viridae ^Talk 01:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for change in duration of a block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Top Gun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not requesting to be unblocked but not to be blocked indefinitly. I was blocked by user Viridae for three days because of an edit war with user Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog in the article Battle of Tskhinvali. The reason of the war was that Captain Obvious was removing large sections of the article because he called them South Ossetian propaganda, those sections were not written by me but by another user, who was eventualy blocked after fighting with Captain Obvious. After that I was reinserting those sections because I was of the opinion that those sections should stay because both sides point of view of the battles should stay in the article, bothe the Ossetian and Georgian. In any case because of the edit war I was blocked by user Viridae for three days. I accepted the block and would have honored it. Captain Obvious was blocked for seven. Captain Obvious also insulted me and other users and used bad language. But 10 hours after I was blocked user Moreschi blocked me indefinitly. His reasons were: lying about sources, in addition to a whole host of other sins. Now, all my edits were referenced, the only "lying" about sources that I can think of is that I put that 180 Georgian soldiers were killed during the battle of Tskhinvali while the reference said 200 died in the whole country. The thing is I made an educated guess how many died in Tskhinvali, because various news reports confirmed only 20 soldiers died in air strikes in other parts of the country, so I put 180 in Tskhinvali because in Ossetia the fighting was primarily in Tskhinvali. But if this is regarded by some Administrators as original research then ok block me for three days. As for a "a whole host of other sins" I can think only of Captain Obvious's copy-paste edit accusation. Yes, I admit it that I copy-pasted some edits based on references but only so I can reword those sentences later so they were not copy-paste. Which I did. If you block me indefinitly a number of very important articles like the List of Iraqi insurgent fatalities, List of Afghan security forces fatalities, List of Iraqi security forces fatalities and 2006 Somali war timeline will go unedited because I was the only user that was keeping at least three of these articles up-to-date. If I am blocked they will no longer be edited properly if edited at all. Again I am not requesting to be unblocked but just to be blocked for the original sentence of three days starting at 01:56 this morning by Viridae. Actualy if it will make some Administrators happy block me for five days if you like, but don't block me indefinitly. Thank you in advance for listening to my appeal.

Decline reason:

While it can be argued that the "180-->200" thing was nitpicking, what can't be forgiven is this admitted copyvio in the face of a parole for this same behavior. Given that and your past history, I'm not comfortable unblocking you. — Blueboy 96 20:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Top Gun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is the second time I am making this apeal. Again, I am not requesting to remove my block but just that it is not indefinitly. Let it be three or five days. I was not lying about the references it's just that the CNN reference was changed and no longer held the information about the 200 dead Georgian soldiers I later changed that to another refernce which had the 200 number. Again, I made an educated guess how many died in Tskhinvali, because various news reports confirmed only 20 soldiers died in air strikes in other parts of the country, so I put 180 in Tskhinvali because in Ossetia the fighting was primarily in Tskhinvali. But if this is regarded by some Administrators as original research then ok block me for three or five days and you have my apology. As for the copy-paste edit accusation. Yes, I admit it that I copy-pasted some edits based on references but only so I can reword those sentences later so they were not copy-paste. Which I did. I reworded those sentences and those that I missed the other user reworded them for me. It was never my intention to copy-paste those sentences, it's just that the user who accused me was angry with me at the time because of the edit war we were having. Again it was not my intention to copy-paste those sentences, I learned my lesson the last time I was blocked because of that and as you can see it's been about a year since then and I didn't make any new copy-pastes. I was just trying to put in the sentences from the referenced articles so I can reword them later to suit the article properly. Again, I have not made any copy-paste violations in the last year or so since my last block. I wouldn't be stupid enough to go through all this again. Also, again, if you block me indefinitly a number of very important articles like the List of Iraqi insurgent fatalities, List of Afghan security forces fatalities, List of Iraqi security forces fatalities and 2006 Somali war timeline will go unedited because I was the only user that was keeping at least three of these articles up-to-date. If I am blocked they will no longer be edited properly if edited at all. If you want to punish me for such a stupid unintentional mistake then punish me. Heck, give me a sentence of a week without editing but don't block me indefinitly. I already learned my lesson the last time. User Moreschi could have sent me a warning before blocking me indefinitly, this simple is not fair, I didn't do anything wrong, all of the copy-pasted sentences were reworded in the end. Thank you in advance for listening to my appeal.

Decline reason:

Per Stifle below and blueboy above. Copyvios are not acceptable, no matter what your intent was. You have had your second chance to contribute productively, but you've chosen to continue violating our policies. — Sandstein 13:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am inclined to decline this appeal but will leave it for another admin to consider. However I would recommend that admin see what's gone before as well as the couple of edits immediately prior to that. I fail to be convinced that Top Gun has changed his ways. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Top Gun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That's the thing it was never my intention to copy-paste, it was never my intention to leave the copy-pasted sentences. Like I said I learned my lesson the last time and as you can see I made no violations for the last year or so. I am a reasonable person and wouldn't make such a stupid mistake. My intention was only to leave those copy-pasted sentences for 10 minutes or so at most so I could reword them to be appropriate to the article. I would have never left those sentences in the article because I understood this was a violation of Wikipedia rules. This is all a misunderstanding. User Stifle said that he is not convinced that I have changed my ways. Please, I don't know what will convince you. Actualy...., I realy don't know what will convince you that this was a misunderstanding. You said I had my second chance to contribute productively. I have been editing Wikipedia for the better part of the last two years, I have contributed to dozens of articles, created several dozens of articles, improved the Iraq war and other War on terrorism articles. I wasted my time, hours and hours, to improve Wikipedia articles nobody had intention to improve. You can see that by the three Barnstars which were granted to me by other Users. One of them being the Tireless Contributor Barnstar, so please don't tell me I wasted my chance to contribute productively, you realy hurt me by saying so and made me belive all I did for Wikipedia for the last two years was a waste. And I spent a lot of my time to help Wikipedia. If you block me a number of articles will go to waste because they will be neglected, because I was the only one to update them. I am not a vandal and simply it's not fair to punish me for something realy wasn't my intention to do. You punish me with an indefinit block while the real vandals, who have not made any real contributions to Wikipedia, are less severaly punished. I realy did learn my lesson and actualy I don't know what will convince you that I am not lying, which is one more thing you accused me of and that hurt me too, I never lied about anything in my life and I am proud of that. I don't know what will convince you that I am true in my intentions to contribute. Please don't tell me that I continued violatiing Wikipedia policies, I went to edit wars with people who were realy violating Wikipedia policies by trying to push their point of views which were not neutral. I wouldn't want to think all I did was in vain with me now not being able to do anything about that anymore. Again this was all a misunderstanding. And again I am just asking not to be blocked indefinitly. If you want to punish me give me 5, 7 or even 10 days of blocking, indefinitly just is... Well actualy I don't know what to say anymore. Again, for the third time, thank you in advance for taking your time to look at my apeal. I hope you will not dismiss this apeal as just one more try of a vandal to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

You contradict yourself. You say, in a single sentence, that you didn't intend to make a copyvio, but then you didn't intend to copyvio for very long. So you did intend to add copyrighted text, in full knowledge that it's not allowed and that you were on probation for doing so, according to your block log. Barnstars are irrelevant, as any one can give them for any reason. I'm not doubting that you have made useful contributions, but your continual ignoring of policy is unacceptable. Telling us that nobody is around to update the articles you were working on is also not a valid reason to unblock you - there are thousands of other editors on this project, with new users every day, and there's always someone to pick up an article in need of attention. Your justification of the edit warring you took part in is also not helping your case. You've been around long enough (and been blocked for edit warring once before) to know how consensus is formed, and that edit warring is disruptive, regardless of how you think other people are wrong. So, no. You have been warned multiple times before. You have been blocked multiple times before. You have been unblocked once on the understanding you wouldn't do this again. But still, you did. I am not unblocking you, nor shortening your block. We do thank you for your constructive work here, but we cannot allow such blatant violations of policy to continue. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Top Gun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes I made a copyvio, but only for a few minutes. I removed the copyvio after I entered the changes to the text. This was the first time I did this since my previous block which was 18 months ago. I can put it to you this way, I made a mistake and I rectified it. I didn't intend to add copyrighted text to the article for it to stay, I only added it for a few minutes until I rewied the text and then edited the article apropriatly. What will it take for you to belive me my past mistakes were just taht in the past. If need be I apologise, I apologise, I apologise, but for you to block me indefinetly for such a minor mistake which again I myself rectified is not realy fair. Other editors have done even worst violations of Wikipedia policy and got lesser sentences. Again I rectified my mistake, and again if I have to I apologise to every Administrator out there, to Blueboy96, to Sandstein, to Stifle, to Hersfold and so on I apologise. I only wanted to use that sentence as a source for editing that article and I erased the copy-pasted sentence later. Please, don't ban me from Wikipedia, I am a student of politics and I enjoy being able to stay in touch with global politics and happenings through Wikipedia, if you ban me I don't know what I will do because this is a job I very much like. If need be I will make a new promise. I will not promise to not make any more copy-violations because I don't think any of you will belive me. Instead I promise, even if it pains me that, I will only make edits on four articles. Those articles are List of Iraqi insurgent fatalities, List of Afghan security forces fatalities, List of Iraqi security forces fatalities and Somali war timeline. Those articles only need updates on numbers of killed people. Also I will only make edits on numbers of casualties in infoboxes in battle articles. I promise, and when I promise something I fullfil it, that I will only make those kind of edits. I WILL NEVER START ANY NEW ARTICLES EVER AGAIN, OR MAKE CHANGES TO ANY OTHER ARTICLES EXCEPT CHANGES OF NUMBERS OF CASUALTIES. Any administrator who doesn't belive me can check up on me at the list of my contributions and if they find that I broke my promise block me forever and I will never make a fuss over this ever again. THIS WAY YOU CAN REST ASSURED THAT I WILL NEVER AGAIN MAKE ANY COPY VIOLATIONS EVEN IF I WANTED TO. I hope this apeal, which is my last, will not be dismissed. If need be I beg you. I will not ask for another apeal because my heart will not be in this anymore if I am rebufed again. Thank you.

Decline reason:

3 requests is enough thank you. — Prodego ^talk 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I understand how you could leave a sentence or two unchanged from a cut & pasted package you intended to rephrase. However, even if that were an honest mistake, it shows that you are not writing properly. Cutting and pasting and then rephrasing or changing a few words here and there may still be a copyright violation or at the very least, plagiarism. The proper thing to do is to gather information, ideally from multiple sources, and then organize the information yourself and write original prose. Mango juice^talk 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, there I am listening to your advice and I agree, and I am admiting again that yes it was a simple mistake on my part, but not writing properly is no reason to block me indefinitly based on my previous mistakes of over a year ago. At the very least the Administrator that blocked me could have warned me before doing this and not just block me so suddenly.Top Gun

Indefinite block

You're not a dog that serves Wikipedia at the whim of it's masters or a naughty boy that needs to be punished, so you don't have to beg like one. Try reading this instead [11].

An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion.

If not one administrator will lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community. In less extreme cases, however, the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and–if unblocked–to refrain from the problematic conduct in future

What you need to ask yourself is

What major breach of policy did you make and what commitment can you make to observe the correct policies
What current problems have you caused that are unresolved and what can you do to resolved those problems by discussion
How are you going to make sure you refrain from the problematic conduct in future

If you're able to answer those questions satisfactorily and the people that have blocked you have genuinely blocked you for a reason other than to punish you, you shouldn't remain blocked.

If you're still not sure what outstanding "matters" you have that need to be "resolved by discussion" (I have no idea, sorry!), just ask someone. It might also help to have a read of the second green paragraph here [12]. 92.10.99.214 (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not a dog, I am a dedicated Wikipedia editor, and no I am not a naughty boy as you said, if they think I made a mistake then they should punish me with a block and I will accept it but not with this kind of block based on my previous miscounduct. I am not beging, I am trying to resolve this dispute. There is no need to call me names. I didn't make any significant disruption or threats of disruption and as for major breaches of policy I wouldn't say that they are mayor but I agree that I may have made a breach of the rules and that is why I say that I would accept a block of a week or so.(Top Gun)

Sorry, I really wasn't trying to call you a name, just trying to help. Here's how I see your problem. You were blocked for a short time for edit warring but edit warring is pretty common and it's hard to use it to justify a long block so you were blocked for lying about sources instead but it wasn't really a lie so it was hard to justify the long block. The problem is that someone doesn't like you and they really want you to stay blocked so the reason was changed to copyright violation. You see someone else had already complained about your (one sentence of) copyvio because they wanted to get you blocked because you weren't agreeing with them on the Battle of Tskhinvali page and they really didn't like other people not agreeing with them. They complained about your one sentence of copyvio and then when you immediately removed it they then used the pretence of removing the rest of your copyvio to remove the stuff that they were disagreeing with you about, even though that material didn't actually have any copyvio in it. That was handy of them because now it's easier to justify blocking you if someone else has already complained about you (it's like two against one at that point, right? You must be guilty of something!). So, the fact that your previous block was a year ago and you've made lots of useful edits etc. is all pretty much irrelevant at this point. Basically, you annoyed people that have power over you and until you apologise for whatever thing they're currently using to keep you blocked, you stay blocked. It sucks, but that's just the way Wikipedia (and the rest of the world) works. So here's my advice. Read the copyvio policy and understand it and how it says that you were wrong to copy one sentence . Apologise for breaking the rules, explain how and why you're not going to do it again and also add some stuff about what you're going to do to avoid conflict (edit warring) and misquoting sources in the future (read and understand the appropriate policies). Don't at any point try to explain or justify what you did in the past, make sure you always agree you were wrong, make sure you always agree with anyone that's involved in your block and do NOT disagree with anyone at any point. Also, whatever you do, don't point out that nearly everyone on Wikipedia has copied one sentence or you'll stay blocked. Job done. 92.13.67.245 (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I already admited to making a breach of Wikipedia rules unintentionaly. And agreed to be blocked but not indefinitely. And at this point even if I say I'm sorry, which I am, I think no appology will be enough. I'm not sure any Administrator will listen to my apeal.(Top Gun)

Now you see, if that had been me and I wanted to get unblocked I'd have said "You're right, I can see now how whether I broke the rules unintentionally or intentionally, I was wrong to break the rules". swiftly followed by "I've been reading the copyright policy now and I can see why I need to make sure I don't copy anything onto Wikipedia ever again". Also, don't talk too much. I've noticed that when you talk a lot it's easy to find something you say, twist it and use it against you, no matter how well intentioned you are. Less talk = less ammunition.

Try reading Good unblock requests or Agree to behave, they're short and to the point. Also, make sure to ask what the current issues are and what you actually need to do to resolve them, I see a lot of punishing your past misdeeds here but not really any pointing out of issues you need to resolve and how you might go about that. 92.10.124.185 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you skipped past the good unblock requests and moved on to the bad unblock requests instead. Oh well, you can take a horse to water.... Good luck. 92.10.100.125 (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to assist the next block reviewer

Looks like I don't have time to complete a proper investigation, but here are some sources for the next reviewer to check. This ANI and this checkuser suggest to me that Top Gun was not using sockpuppets in the recent dispute at Battle of Tskhinvali. The tag line in the indef block by Moreschi argues that Top Gun lied about sources. For the background on that issue, see User talk:Moreschi#User:Top Gun and User talk:Moreschi#I turn to you about few cases. Moreschi also joined in the ANI thread already cited. He claimed there that Top Gun's reverts at Battle of Tskhinvali in the latest revert war were of 'god-awful quality.'

Some editors were distressed that the result of a recent 3RR was that the editor who was warring with Top Gun got blocked as a result, and this concern may be echoed by Moreschi in his ANI comment.

Now that sockpuppetry appears less likely, the two most important issues for the next admin to consider before giving any thought to lifting this block would be (a) copyvios, and (b) misrepresenting sources. It seems to me that getting casualty figures wrong, if it occurs repeatedly, would be very serious. There are some hints in Top Gun's talk page of people questioning his casualty figures in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had disputes with other editors in the past about casualty figures but they were all solved after talking. I wanted to resolve the missunderstanding with the editor in question but he wouldn't talk to me reasonable and kept calling me names, because of this he was blocked for a week from editing Wikipedia. This is not the first time I have been accused of sockpuppetry. All of the previous accusetions proved finaly to be false because users who didn't agree with me in some edits tried to push their own point of view by accusing other users who were on my side that they were actualy me. User 92.13.67.245 told me that user Moreschi accused him of actualy being me and that was one of his bases for blocking me. But I think after an investigation you can see that I was not using sockpuppets. As for the last accusation of copy-paste see my reasoning up above in my apeal. Thank you.(Top Gun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Top Gun (talk • contribs) 23:17, 13 August 2008

No, it was not user Moreschi who suspected you two days ago of sockpuppetry. It was me - see this report, and I apologize for that. Note that checkuser report shows that you indeed was involved in sockpuppetry, but only in the past.Biophys (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* You've linked to a check user report to prove a nearly two year old case of sockpuppetry, which it doesn't. Can you instead link instead to the previous sockpuppet report where sockpuppetry was proven. Check user reports (confirmed ones) do not equal proven sock puppet reports. If you're accusing someone and linking to the proof it seems fair to actually link to the proven accusation.

* Bringing up something from nearly two years ago when you know it's not related to what's going on now seems a bit unfair. 92.12.57.108 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The (a) copivios mentioned is one sentence [13]. If there's an implication that there are multiple copyvios, diffs with clear proof should be provided.
The (b) misrepresenting sources mentioned above is TopGun claiming 180 from a reference that said 200 on a page where the figures varied from one hour to the next and the other figures on the page also didn't match what the references were saying, as I mentioned on the ANI [14] and demonstrated on the Battle of Tskhinvali talk page [15]. If there's an implication that there is more to it, diffs with clear proof of misrepresentation of sources should be provided.
The tactic of using a phrase such as "god-awful quality" to back up ones block is a bit suspect. If you're going to use it though, it would be polite to at least link to it. It might be a good idea to have a quick look through TopGun's edits up to the point he got involved in the conflicted editing with Captain Obvious on the Battle of Tskhinval article (for example 10th August and before) as I think editing done by someone during an edit conflict can almost by definition be characterized as god awful.
The ANI was archived. It's final state was this. 92.12.57.108 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was never involved in sockpuppetry, not two years ago and the investigation then concluded that and not even now. I put the 200 number as an educated guess and was not lying about the source because other news reports said about 20 soldiers died in air strikes so I assumed that at least 180 died in the Battle of Tskhivanli, as for the copyvio I explained my position in my apeals and obviously no Administrator is wanting to belive me because of my previous mistakes of 18 months ago and I have apologised to every Administrator out there. And even promised not to edit or start any more Wikipedia articles except for the Lists of Afgha and Iraqi security forces fatalities, Iraqi insurgent fatalities and Somali war timeline and on occasion the infoboxes of battles articles. And the Administrators can check up on me from time to time to see if I am keeping true to my word. Also I don't understand why you Biophys and Moreschi cut down the block of Captain Obvious from a week to two hours and extended mine from three days to indefinetly , he was edit warring as much as I did. It's completly unfair. Just because you felt sad for Capaint Obvious and thought I was some evil bad guy is no reason for doing this. Except for that one sentence of copyvio all of the paragraphs I added to the battle of Tskhinvali were not actualy my edits at all, some other user added them a few days before but Captain Obvious removed them from the article for no reason since they were all referenced. I reinserted them and when I confronted him he said it was all Rusian propaganda. I was of the opinion Rusian propaganda or not pointes of view of both warring sides had to be taken into account. But he continued pushing his pro-Georgian point of view.(Top Gun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Top Gun (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for blocking this guy are disgraceful. The other user has a history of vandalism, harrasment and personal attacks. If you take a look at TopGuns contributiopns, you will see a bunch of very benign "little" casualty figures-related edits. His actions now can NO WAY be reasons for an indefinite. (Didn't know where to comment his block) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support TheFEARgod. But I think they will not listen. I tried four times to make an apeal and it fell on deaf ears. If you want to comment on my block to the administrators I think you do it here [[16]].Top Gun

In reply to User:TheFEARgod: This is as good a place as any to comment on Top Gun's block.

To facilitate an unblock, it would be good if you would review some of Top Gun's past work on casualty figures. I have not looked into the matter of misrepresenting sources, which if true would be the most serious issue.
Moreschi was also very distressed about the revert war at Battle of Tskhinvali. To justify Top Gun's work there, we would have somebody collect actual diffs and show how Top Gun was correct there and the people he was reverting were wrong.
It is not easy to justify revert-warring *at all*; that part will be tough to explain. It appears that Top Gun made 69 edits on the article on 11 August and many of these were reverts. It is hard to imagine that this kind of work is cooperative and helpful.
Top Gun rarely joins that article's Talk page and when he does, he never signs his comments properly with four tildes. (He does not even sign properly on this Talk page).
There is a lot of discussion of Top Gun's copyvios at Talk:Battle of Tskhinvali and you should try explaining those as well. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already said this and will say it again, I put the 200 number as an educated guess based on the reference I provided (which said 200 dead during the conflict) and was not lying about the source because other news reports said about 20 soldiers died in air strikes so I assumed that at least 180 died in the Battle of Tskhivanli as the majority of the fighting in Ossetia happened in the city, as for the copyvio I explained my position in my apeals, I just wanted to copy-paste the sentence from the reference into the article to have a bases for rewording the text so it shouldn't be a copyvio and be appropriate for the article. I was never going to leave that text there for more than 10 or 15 minutes at the most. I reverted Captain Obvious because he was removing large chunks of text from the article claiming it to be Russian propaganda. First of all I didn't put that text there but I didn't agree Captain Obious vandalising the article that way, all of those sentences were referenced. Just because the references were coming from the Russians or the Ossetians was no reason to remove them. At the very least both sides point of view in the battle had to be pointed out. Captain Obvious was obviously pushing his pro-Georgian point of view and he was calling not just me but other users as weel names.Top Gun

Thing is, you're really not helping your case here.

"I put the 200 number as an educated guess" : this comes across to me as you saying it's alright to find a reliable source and change what it says based on an educated guess because you've seen other information elsewhere so you know a more correct figure. If you don't get why that's wrong there's a problem, right there. Here's an imagined scenario. Let's say you're editing your Iraqi casualty figures (or whatever figures you're so keen to edit that you don't mind having your Wikipedia editing limited to just those figures) and you have a source that says a certain figure but you know deep down in your heart that the figure is much higher because those goddamn American's are always killing people all over the world and getting away with it and hiding the real figures and you read in a forum the other day that the figures are really much higher. So you use the source as a reference and change the figure from the one in the source to the one that YOU know is real. That's a problem. I'm not saying that's what you would do but what you're saying is heading towards that kind of thinking and away from what the point of a reliable source is.

"I just wanted to copy-paste" : If you're saying it's OK to put copyrighted text into the edit box and click "save page" there's another problem. For legal reasons it's not, no matter how long you plan on leaving it there. In any case, it's easy enough to put text into the edit box and reword it and then save the page, or do it in a text editor and then save it to Wikipedia. If I'm reading this right, you're saying it was OK to add copyrighted text to Wikipedia for only 10 or 15 minutes. No one on Wikipedia is going to unblock you until they're very sure you don't believe it was, is or ever will be OK to add copyrighted text for any amount of time.

Don't even bother trying to defend an edit war. It is what it is and everyone knows what it is and why you did it, same reason everyone does. You deserve to be blocked for an edit war, just not blocked indefinitely. Anyone that ever tries to defend their little edit war just comes across as someone that still thinks it was in some way justified and so needs to stay blocked. 92.8.54.190 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I did like you say at this point I think not one of the Administrators would belive me even if I am honost about this.(Top Gun)

I say I definitely do not oppose a 1 week block for Top Gun, the reasons for that exist. (The pause would be good to his health :)). I agree that the 200-180 dead thing is OR, he finds it logical but other people do not. I have frequent contact with him, as you can see from my contributions there's a pause between August 11 and 13: I was on vacation and I asked him to update an article, in my language, of course. If I was active he would have probably asked me for assistance and I would certainly have the situation calmed down. The accusations are true, but not worth for an indefinite.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the other user was quickly unblocked and now continues to troll and to do inflammatory polemic at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capt.sge.ohh05.120407150602.photo02.photo.default-512x278.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Capt.sge.ohh05.120407150602.photo02.photo.default-512x278.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iraqi Army personnel watch a fire burn after a bombing in Mosul.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Iraqi Army personnel watch a fire burn after a bombing in Mosul.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:U.S. soldiers during street fighting in Sadr City in April 2008.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:U.S. soldiers during street fighting in Sadr City in April 2008.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mahdi Army fighters take up positions during the street fighting in Basra.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mahdi Army fighters take up positions during the street fighting in Basra.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:French armored vehicle in N'Djamena.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:French armored vehicle in N'Djamena.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smoke rises from the Green Zone after a mortar strike March 25, 2008.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Smoke rises from the Green Zone after a mortar strike March 25, 2008.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Afghan soldiers near Musa Qala.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Afghan soldiers near Musa Qala.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:A soldier with a Stryker unit aims a rocket launcher at a possible bomb during an offensive in the Diyala River Valley.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:A soldier with a Stryker unit aims a rocket launcher at a possible bomb during an offensive in the Diyala River Valley.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:American Stryker vehicle near Muqdadiya.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:American Stryker vehicle near Muqdadiya.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:16Insurgency01.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:16Insurgency01.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polish Hind in Iraq.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Polish Hind in Iraq.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Army.mil-2007-03-19-132820.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Army.mil-2007-03-19-132820.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle-1t.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Battle-1t.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle-2t.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Battle-2t.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:16Insurgency01.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:16Insurgency01.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kosovo Forces fatalities for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Kosovo Forces fatalities, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo Forces fatalities (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]