User talk:BobaFett85

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hi, BobaFett85! Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you like the place, and decide to stay. We are counting on your help to improve Wikipedia! These links might help you in learning and finding your way around Wikipedia during the first few days. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there, and someone should come along soon and deal with your problem.

Introduction Wikipedia Tutorial The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Edit a page Upload an image Developing articles Need help? Ask questions or make comments

Welcome! Have some Wikicake!
Stay out of trouble!
• No Vandalism • Three-revert rule • No sock puppetry • Don't violate copyrights • Don't spam • No personal attacks • No edit warring

If you would like to be adopted by an experienced user, it'll help you to get familiar with Wikipedia and the "do"s and "don't"s pretty quickly. Also consider joining a Wikiproject on a subject that you are interested in and collaborate with other users to create and improve articles. Finally, remeber to include an edit summary for all your edits, and don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! -- Chamal ^talk 02:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

Hi,

Please respond at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Infobox_edit for Palestinian casualties in the lead.VR _talk 15:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to respond on multiple locations on the Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict talk page. Please do so soon.VR _talk 05:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt complaining so much about putting the info in or taking it out, just that there was a lot of discussion going on about these things, and changes to the lead and infobox should be talked about first, at least I think so in these contentions articles. Will look now and respond on article talks. Nableezy (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

I reopened discussion on "intensified" vs. "began," please reply @ talk, thanks, Kaisershatner (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Note: I moved the whole thread here to avoid confusion. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the edits are according to the refs, I haven't changed a thing, the only thing I did was I summed up the numbers of civilians killed, based on the exact number of kids, women, elderly and aid workers killed which was reported by official UN and MoH sources. I removed the source which reported that 93 women were killed because this other source said 68 women were killed, both sources said 270 kids died, one other difference between them was that the source that reported the lower number of women killed reported the number of old people killed, which the other did not. So it is possible that women may be among those elderly. Also I put the number of policemen killed in the notes section because the Israelis said they killed 550 combatants since the start of operations, the IDF counts Hamas policemen as Hamas militants, common knowledge.BobaFett85 (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You returned a lot of old references I just cleaned out after hours of work.

Please discuss things first on the talk page. I have been discussing casualties for days on the talk page.

It is common to have differences in numbers in the references. There is no one perfect reference. We let the readers decide. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And all of the references are there, I haven't removed a thing, I even used your reference that you added which says 90 old people died and removed one of my own old references. We have to inser up-to-date and the best references not just any that are floting around and in my opinion a better and up-to-date one is the one that reported the number of killed elderly in addition to women and children, the old one did not.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "We have to inser up-to-date and the best references not just any that are floting around and in my opinion a better and up-to-date one is the one that reported the number of killed elderly in addition to women and children, the old one did not.

That one is from a Russian website and says "4000" wounded. I think they are rounding up. We can't just use that reference alone. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not just removing the old refs but also reverting everything I edited in the article in the last half hour, please stop it.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did not combine my edits with yours before starting your edits. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, for the last time, that other reference doesn't give at all the number of dead elderly this one those, and women can also be among the elderly, that's why they have a lower number of dead women than that other one that has no number of old people. And for the last time, don't just totaly revert me, instead reinsert things that you thing need adding but don't remove MY edits. TxBobaFett85 (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Please do not comment on my talk page further. See WP:TALK. I will follow the discussion here. Please see my previous replies. You did not combine my edits with yours before starting your edits. It looks like you reverted way back, and then started your editing. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to my old edits and then I started doing my edits in combination with your references!!!!! And wasn't finished yet with removing old references when you started reverting me!!!!! So hold off for 10 minutes until I finish the edits and then check what edits you want to make, but don't just compleatly revert me just change what you want but not remove my entire edit.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have started by reverting my work to an old edit of yours. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be easier and what about your revert of my work, what's your excuse?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There I finished, I didn't remove any of your references, I just summed up the aproximate number of civilians killed in the infobox, and the reader will see why the number 444 is there when he reads the notes section, also stop reinserting the number of policemen killed from the notes section into the main section of the infobox, because the IDF counts cops as any ordinary militants, the reader will see the number of policemen killed in the notes section.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take a look. Someone else was removing material in between our work. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want I can add a + to 444, as probably there are some normal age males that have been killed and are civilians.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case by my calculations it seems someone overshot the real number by exactly 140, eather the IDF with their numbers of militants killed or the MoH with their number of women, children and elderly. I guess that's propaganda for you.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good. I think the refs though for the total number of Israelis killed got removed somehow. Also, the link refs for the total number of Israeli soldiers. Or at least they were there before. Still looking. The numbers will never add up, because of propaganda, and because no one really knows the truth. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't touch those numbers on the Israeli casualties, somebody else might have removed them. As for the other, I guess your right. Will see what we will see in the end.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really screwed up some of the reference details by reverting my edits as a starting point. Now the same reference URL is repeated down in the reference notes at the bottom of the page.

I had more multiple links to the same reference then there are now. I am referring to this type of wikicode:

<ref name=afp2009jan10/>

I am not sure if you know what I am talking about?

Also, by reverting you removed reference details altogether for some URLs such as this one:

http://en.rian.ru/world/20090111/119414133.html

<ref name=ria2009jan11> [http://en.rian.ru/world/20090111/119414133.html Half of Gaza dead 'children, women and elderly']. Jan. 11, 2009. [[RIA Novosti]].</ref>

Please correct those errors.

Still looking. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Here is your first diff: [1]

You went way back. That messed up a lot of reference details. Please put those reference details back. Such as article title, name of publication, author name, date of publication, wikilinks, etc.

Also, the Yahoo News URLs go bad, and I had found a real publication with the same article as this:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090110/twl-israel-warns-of-further-escalation-a-3cd7efd.html

That is what this <ref name=afp2009jan10/> replaced. It replaced the above link that was duplicated numerous times.

I hope you now see why you should not start by reverting. It may take hours to fix all the reference details you removed. I don't even know yet if you removed useful references altogether.

I noticed that you favored the Russian publication's number for women killed (68) versus the Agence France-Presse <ref name=afp2009jan10/> number. I would go with the Agence France-Presse total of 93 women. It would be WP:SYNTH for us to try to figure out how many of the elderly are women. People understand that the elderly are both men and women. Leave both links and let the readers decide.

You also removed this reference below that explains the MoH numbers. I placed the ref after "MoH". Can you return it please?:

<ref name=afp2009jan11>[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/the-macabre-count-of-a-doctor-in-gaza/2009/01/11/1231608508946.html The macabre count of a doctor in Gaza]. Jan. 11, 2009. [[Agence France-Presse]].</ref>

Thanks in advance. I am tired, and have to take a break. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get you what references you were talking about, but if you want to reinsert some references than I have no objections. Cheers!BobaFett85 (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I took care of the reference details I mentioned. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total of civilian dead

I think my wording is better. No estimate of total civilian dead has been made by the MoH. See this revision of the article: [2]

Please see also:

Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Total of Palestinian civilian dead --Timeshifter (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article changed in the ref I provided for the 380 number because it is yahoo news, it did said 380 killed. I'll try to find that reference again and get back to you. You may want to find a non-yahoo news ref that confirms the new 909 number of dead while I find that source for 380.BobaFett85 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, found both references here they are [3] for 909 in total and [4] for 380.BobaFett85 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy now that I think about it I will not be adding again the 380 number because this other reference that said 909 dead in total said close to 400 of them are women and children so this 380 number is in fact only women and children, they didn't count medics and elderly people.BobaFett85 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles just total the number of women and children, but make no claim that those are the only civilians.

We have a better, newer article that gives more of a breakdown of civilian dead: http://english.wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=12514

I linked to it in several places using a multi-link: <ref name=wafa2009jan12/> --Timeshifter (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know about that better source, I added it. It was a big day for number revelations. Even the IDF came out and said they killed 650 militants. However that would overshoot the mark of 909 preety wide so I put 400-650 because they said they confirmed 400 were Hamas operatives while for the other 250 said they belived they were Hamas operatives. So there is room for error there on their part. But if the numbers are right and the numbers of women and children killed are legit and not propaganda then the Israelis are counting all men who are between 18 and 55 as terrorists.BobaFett85 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to know whether the numbers are right from any source. We just report them. Thanks for referencing that WAFA article. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Casualties section of the article needs a lot of work, there is a bunch of out-of-date sentences and numbers there, and large chunks of text not needed. That section should only focus on current up-to-date numbers given by both sides.BobaFett85 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I haven't edited that section at all. Not enough time. Other projects and articles I am working on. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fighters

The Jerusalem Post article [5] does not use the word "fighters" at all.

Many of the deaths (such as the 138 police) occurred during the initial bombing raids the first days before Israel entered Gaza. They weren't fighting.

That is probably why the IDF did not use the word fighters. The claim of the IDF has been that they were "operatives" of Hamas and that is why Israel attacked them. Because Hamas allowed the rocket attacks. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDF estimate of Palestinian civilian dead.

I know it is ridiculous of some people in the IDF to say that there were less than 250 Palestinian civilian deaths, but we just report what the sources say, and let the readers decide.

The readers have the reference link:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950849614&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

So I think WP:NPOV requires that we leave the various Palestinian civilian death estimates in the infobox. Part of the war is this propaganda battle on all sides. That is part of what an encyclopedia should cover in my opinion, and is an important fact that shouldn't be left out according to the WP:NPOV requirement to show all significant facts and viewpoints. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against consensus

Despite what you claim in your edits, [6][7] you are against against the consensus formed at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Policemen and Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_14#Combining_militants_and_policemen. I urge you to not make edits that violate consensus, this edit being one of them.VR _talk 15:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that you make edits without discussing on talk, and also against consensus. Please take your edits to talk before making it, esp. since there is consensus against you.VR _talk 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IDF sources don't claim they are including the 138 number (or I haven't seen them). Also, I don't see any consensus you had on the talk page. Please continue the discussion at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Policemen.VR _talk 17:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again you reverted against consensus. Why is it that you find it so hard to join the talk page at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Policemen? Please, many editors gave their response there, you should too. I'd be happy to debate you there.VR _talk 17:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please raise your points in the talk page and do not revert against consensus. If your arguments are convincing then you will gain consensus. But please do not revert without engaging in the discussion and reaching consensus. Nableezy (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, just chill, I think we can convince people without edit wars and such. The argument is rational, and I think once he takes a step back to look at how the figures are presented he will likely agree. I just think it has been a misunderstanding about the Israeli figures already including the police, so to list them again is redundant. But like I said, I would suggest relaxing (funny me saying this I havent been relaxed at all). I think you are right on this, but we can convince people by using rationality. Peace, Nableezy (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia map

Al-Sunnah wal-Jammah always backed ARS-Djibouti, not the TFG per se. It's the same government, only now it's been merged with the ARS-Djibouti and half the parliamentarians are ARS, including a third UIC. I did use a different shade of blue to signify the new entity. It's kind of splitting hairs really. --Ingoman (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not omit edit summaries

Please do not omit edit summaries while doing your edits (such as in [8][9]). This is critical for assuming good faith and to save other contributors time. Thanks! --Darwish (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, BobaFett85. You have new messages at Darwish's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2007 Lebanon conflict

I now see that I am going against "the consensus of the majority" and "can not do that", thanks for letting me know. However, even obvious statements need a source, it would be nice if you added one for the statement by both Lebanon and the United States that it was part of it. --dicttrshp (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC) By the way, there appears to be no conclusive discussion on Talk:2007 Lebanon conflict, nor does it link to your userpage.[reply]

Still, please add a source to the statement by Bush confirming it was a front in the War on Terrorism. --dicttrshp (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add an actual source (e.g an official statement by the US),

also note that even if a source exists, it doesn't need to be included on the infobox (for an example see 2006 Lebanon War, which actually has a source). By the way, this type of "continuous reverting" is probably not allowed, it's better to use talk pages. --dicttrshp (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please comply with adding a source or desist from reverting any more. --dicttrshp (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's good now, thanks for putting it. --dicttrshp (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Political situation in Somalia following the Ethiopian withdrawal.png

Thanks for uploading File:Political situation in Somalia following the Ethiopian withdrawal.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

casualty notes

I see you and Dovid are going back and forth on the notes in the infobox. There was a discussion a while back about removing those to compact the infobox, and a number of users said they would support that as the information is in the article. While I think he shouldnt be throwing words like vandalism around like that, I would say you should bring it up in the talk page if you want them in the article. Peace, Nableezy (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines

I've just removed the casualty figures from the article again and started a discussion of my rationale for doing so on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan has been nominated for deletion

please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

responded on my talk page Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page on why i Support the deletion of Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan . In my opinion, its a simple cut and paste of the old Coalition casualties in Afghanistan with a slight change to the numbers, as you have slightly changed the article name. I understand your point of view, but the article is not needed on WP. However, I am firm in my belief that the Coalition casualties in Afghanistan article should be an overview article anyway. I did a little digging around after yesterday, and the British page has discussion that it seems to be a memorial article. Thats a POV that i never thought before. I wondered then how big an article for the US casualties would be? Jez t e C 12:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JMS Old Al (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider dispute resolution as an alternative. --neon white talk 05:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan

FYI, I have started a discussion on this article at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan. Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition casualties in in Afghanistan <--> American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan

I don't like what you did, I tried each time (if available) info about their background, age etc. And you made it to something very dry and impersonal. Why if I may ask, you deleted all of my work, without asking. Perelada (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fine with me ... (my intel used to be more accurate, but I've no longer access to the ncbs.nato.int network) Perelada (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan

I have nominated American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. EyeSerene^talk 09:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of deleted material

Just a friendly caution - you need to be careful about edits like this, where you seem to be saying that if the American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan article is deleted via AfD, you'll reinsert the deleted material into the Coalition casualties in Afghanistan article. Firstly, we can't predict how the AfD will turn out, and secondly, recreating deleted material is considered disruptive and may lead to you being blocked from editing. EyeSerene^talk 11:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll need to see what the AfD outcome is; just because something has been on WP for ages doesn't mean it's appropriate. Personally I sympathise with what you're trying to do, but I still believe it may be running into editorial policy issues. Regarding your other point, I think Nick was responding to Perelad's final comment. I took no offence though - it's no big deal. EyeSerene^talk 12:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

zamaranje

Neznam sta se previse zamaraš tim stranicama, izgleda da nemožeš potegnut nijedan argument jer vikipedija ima očito pravila koje sprječavaju svaki j+++ni argument. Pusti americke zrtve, ima icasualties za to, drži se ti civila, Afganskih vojnika i pobunjenika...--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise solution

I note that you have indeed provided the two links, but it seems to me that any discrepancy between the two (the reconciliation of which you are using to justify the entire article!) is original research. I propose everything below the Fatalities header be deleted and replaced by a table listing the number killed by province/country of death if not in Afghanistan. This would remove the problem of the memorial "violation" and result in a more concise article. Also, the footnotes of the DoD pdf file should be mentioned, as it appears that deaths which have previously been counted in the Afghanistan numbers are now being retroactively counted in the Operation Iraqi Freedom numbers. Note that I have added "fact needed" tags to the introduction of the article. Please add inline citations so it is clear which source you are using. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be even coarser. Just the number killed to date in each province/country. The article length needs to be kept reasonably short. Each figure needs to be clearly sourced and if you have performed any calculations to arrive at a particular number, that needs to be mentioned in the article as well (as a comment perhaps). Other editors need to be able to follow how you arrived at a particular number for verification/validation purposes. Any discrepancies between figures has to be mentioned in the article-proper, with explanations of how each source arrived at its figures.Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this whole discussion to the article's talk page. Please reply there. Thanks.Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing instead of allowing discussion and consensus to take place

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

76.69.228.84 (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Soldiers

Just looked at your comment on my talk again. If it comes up for AfD again, i'd probably lean towards keep. I think the rename was the right way to go for a globally-focused encyclopedia (don't want to piss off those canadians). Generally on lists, I look for these: Is it clearly defined (this one sails over that one)? Is it completable (all wars end, this one likewise, so ditto on the sailing over)? Is it a useless content fork? This last is the only tough one. Haven't looked at these articles at all. I'd probably like the coalition casualtives article to be just for "Non-US military coalition casualties" since that is the tiny subset, and all of the US mil deaths to be in the US mil article. Don't much like redundancy. But generally, the current state of play seems good to me (I spent 5 years in Iraq, so have strong opinions on these matters but generally stay away from them on Wikipedia). Go well (and after just a glance at latest happenings) keep your cool.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Israel–Gaza conflict

I would like to discuss this article with you. This article in my opinion needs to be merged with 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict since that article also covers the conflict in Gaza both in the 2007 and the 2008 period and contains almost the same information. After the merge of the 2008 article to the 2007-2008 article we can use the 2007-2008 article additionaly as a background article for the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. I didn't notice you reverted my merger back in January and also I say you said you sent me a message about the merger but I didn't get any message. What do you say? Would you be OK with the merge?BobaFett85 (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time the need is to create additional articles. Now that we have separate articles we have space to incorporate more stuff.

User:Trachys did most of the editing of the page moved to one of my subpages: User:Timeshifter/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008. I suggest contacting Trachys at User talk:Trachys about incorporating/summarizing parts of that article into 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. Or just go ahead and incorporate/summarize as needed into 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict.

2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict should be divided up for the sake of simplicity. Change/move it to 2007 Israel–Gaza conflict. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, there is no break between the 2007 and the 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. It's one big 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. There were no truces or ceasefires during the conflict that would give reason for us to divide it into two different articles, it would be like we divided World War Two into 1941 world conflict and 1942 world conflict.BobaFett85 (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much stuff to put in a combined 2007-2008 article. Lots of info and activities described from both sides viewpoints. See Talk:2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict#2008 material for 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. Examples of yearly articles:

Category:Chronology of World War II

Timeline of World War II (1939)

Timeline of World War II (1940)

Timeline of World War II (1941)

Timeline of World War II (1942)

Timeline of World War II (1943)

Timeline of World War II (1944)

Timeline of World War II (1945) --Timeshifter (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you deserved one of these...

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		For your excellent work in saving American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan from deletion and turning it into a more balanced and encyclopedic article. EyeSerene^talk 09:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Spotlight

Hi. Im very sorry Ive not gotten back to you sooner about this, but I have been on holiday in Tokyo for the last two weeks. The only reason I didn't add it originally is because I wasn't sure where in the chronology it fitted exactly. I've done that before for things like Spotlight Kup and Mirage. However, the placement you have suggested sounds good, and I will try and implement it tonight when I get home. Also, you're probably more than aware of this by now, but I ordered Jazz and Max Dinos 4 online and they arrived together the day after they came out, so thats how I added them both. Best regards. SMegatron (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i've added Jazz to the main article in the civil war section. I've added it before the devastation of Cybertron by Thunderwing as described in Stormbringer as the background in Jazz makes it look like its still a relatively intact-ish Cybertron, but thats just my opinion. Feel free to change it if you want. Best regards.SMegatron (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of insurgent fatality reports in Afghanistan

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of insurgent fatality reports in Afghanistan. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of insurgent fatality reports in Afghanistan. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of War on Terrorism casualties

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is War on Terrorism casualties. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Terrorism casualties. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ‑KoshVorlon | Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 11:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]