User talk:Warrior on Terrorism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
|
[edit] US Casualties of War
Thank you for updating the casualties of the Afghan war. Where are you getting your figures? I used to get them from www.defenselink.mil, but they deleted that link. Czolgolz 13:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I appriciate you updated figures on what's amounting to a forgotten war. Czolgolz 20:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ho Chi Minh Trail
Howdy! Thanks for the revisions on VPA/PAVN (I was about to do that any way). As to the use of Viet Cong, I find it distressing. The name of the organization for which those men and women fought and died was the National Liberation Front, not some perjorative title imposed on them by Ngo Dinh Diem. I know, most Americans would not know the NLF if it jumped up and bit them, but I was under the impression that we were supposed to strive for historical accuracy. How would you like it if I edited the article on the American Civil War and altered every mention of the United States Army, the Union Army, or the Federal Army to, say, the "damn Yankee Army"? RM Gillespie 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Revert vandalism" on 2004-2006 Waziristan conflict
Content disputes, which is exactly what is happening on 2004-2006 Waziristan conflict cannot be considered vandalism. Further wholesale reverts of HanzoHattori's (or anyone's) good faith edits and characterizing them as vandalism may result in you being blocked from editing for a period of time for violating Wikipedia's policies of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Since this is not vandalism, whenever you decide you do not like an edit by HanzoHattori, you must give a reason for the revert, either in the edit summary, or, if complex, on the talk page after making a note of that in the edit summary. If you do revert, you are required to re-insert any parts of the edit which are non-controversial and contribute to the article (such as wikilinking important terms, grammar and spelling corrections, and non-controversial and useful content additions). Please play fair. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit] Evidence
If I may step in, I believe the "evidence" you're looking for is under the link Netsnipe provided, if you would only click on it. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)