User talk:Publicus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan

I just wanted to know, since I know you want the numbers of casualties from wars to be precise, if I can count on your support? A user nominated the article I created Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan for deletion because he says it is a POV fork from this other article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. I tried to reason with editors in that article that it is wrong when it lists only soldiers killed within the borders of the country and not those who died elswhere while supporting the war. Just like soldiers who died in Kuwait while supporting the Iraq war. But they wouldn't listen, they said that article lists only soldiers who died IN Afghanistan. They wouldn't include some 30 US and one Canadian soldier on the list. So I decided to create a separate article which lists all soldiers killed in the war and not just Afghanistan. Now they want to delete it because they say it is a copy of that other article. I cann't help it if both articles are about ALMOST the same thing, of course they would look the same. But I made modifications to the article and was going to do more so they do not look the same. There needs to be an article that lists ALL soldiers who died as the result of the war. The talk on deletion is right here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan. BobaFett85 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi BobaFett85, I've posted a comment on this on the deletion page--to basically punt it and try and solve the dispute on with the other editor. I'll lend some help to including all the casualties--proper labeling tends to solve this sorts of disputes. Publicus 18:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I did as you suggested and put icasualtie's higher number of in-Afghanistan deaths, which is by seven higher than the DoD's number. But I also noted at two places in the article the number is by seven higher than the DoD's number even though all of them were confirmed by DoD. I also created a subsection for the article where the additional 28 US and 1 Canadian death are mentioned. But I have a new problem now. I removed all of the specific incidents of US deaths from the article, where their names, ranks and age were mentioned and created an article which nicely lists all of those soldiers almost in the same way this article did. But now some editors started a discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan that the article is a memorial and I'm affraid they will want to delete it. Could you voice your opinion there since you are the most cool-headed guy I know.BobaFett85 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for deletion. For now the vote is five against five. The main problem is it's in the form of a list of soldiers killed so they say that it is in violation of the Memorial rule. In essence I agree with them but the list is needed. One editor, who expressed a keep vote, has said that maybe we can make it so not to be a list of names but a chronology of attacks on US forces and also the numbers of casualties in those attacks. Just like you and me did over at the Iraqi insurgents casualties list. I would agree with this if there is no other way. Your help would be highly apreciated since the article is needed. The discussion and vote is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan. Cheers!BobaFett85 (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No thank you. Publicus 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for letting me know Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Peak oil (disambiguation)

I have nominated Peak oil (disambiguation), 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/Peak oil (disambiguation). 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. Fences and windows (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq

I have nominated List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq, 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/List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq. 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Colorado War

Template:Campaignbox Colorado War has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan(Update)

Please add below information this in this article.article.http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

In 2010, 21 policemen and 16 soldiers were reported killed.

• January 14, 2010 - A police officer was killed and six others were wounded Wednesday in a roadside bombing in Ghazni province.

• January 17, 2010 - Various taliban attacks in country killed 2 Afghan soldiers, 5 policemen and an Afghan district chief.

• January 18, 2010 - A policeman killed in explosions and heavy machine-gun in Afghan capital, Kabul.

Afghan private security guard losses

• January 13, 2010 - An Afghan PMC killed by a gunfire during a protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.175.208 (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this IP editor is Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs) trying to evade their indefinite block. They're spamming various editors talk pages. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll hold off on edit suggestions from them. Publicus 15:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Protests, 2009 and Tea Party Movement suggested Merge

Just an FYI, as an editor who was actively involved in the move of the former article, Tea Party protests. There is currently a discussion to merge the two after it appeared a clear consensus was reached on moving and separating. The editor sponsoring the merge alleges the move was not executed "properly". I'm confused as to what this means. --Happysomeone (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll check it out. Publicus 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We need your participation in the discussion again. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Teabagging

How would you feel about moving your recent inclusion into the main article? It receives too much weight at Teabagging. It is decently sourced so keeping it somewhere would be good. Cptnono (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, some of the tea party movement editors were concerned about how much the "teabagging" stuff should be on that article. Check the talk on that page and see what makes sense or feel free to whittle down the stuff I added--I was just trying to cover the issue somewhere with a wikilink. Publicus 16:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sinovel

A tag has been placed on Sinovel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)