User talk:Publicus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Iraq War

I feel it is undue weight to mention WMD's in the overview but leave out all the other reasons. Perhaps if WMD's was also removed from the overview it would then be NPOV, as neither will be mentioned, however MR. Tibbs has stated that is not acceptable so I ask you to stop removing mention of all other reasons other then WMD's. Your summary explanation states you feel those reasons are mentioned cause res 114 is stated, however that should also lead you to remove any mention of WMD's from the overview as well. I look forward to hearing from you. --Zer0faults 17:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I rescind me comment above I see you are still adding and removing from the article, I seen a pause and so I thought you had concluded, my apologies. --Zer0faults 17:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I posted a reply on your user talk page.Publicus 17:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice NPOV statements about the ethnic and religious groups. I was planning to get back there and add something myself after some more research, but you beat me to it. Thanks again.

[edit] About the Iraq War Poll

Publicus, the vote here: [1] is about whether or not "War on Terrorism" should be used in the infobox caption. And you voted under: "Users who think the term "war on terrorism" should be used" but you said in your statement you think it Shouldn't be in the infobox. So you might want to move your statement. And it's a vote too, no reason to have paragraphs of talk there. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanks, war ships and planes

On Wikipedia such casualties are mentioned, if information is available and reliable. See for instance: Battle of Taranto, Attack on Pearl Harbour and Yom Kippur War. This has also already been discussed on the talk page. Please don't remove these casualties again. Sijo Ripa 00:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See talk page. Summary: I don't object a separate listing, as long as this listing is still in the infobox. Humvee's may be mentioned also btw. Sijo Ripa 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global strategic petroleum reserves

When you have a chance can you look over this article and see if it has enough sources to take the "unreferenced" tag off. Thanks Publicus 14:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Got a chance today to look it over. It certainly is much better referenced now, but I marked some specific claims that are still unreferenced. I also left a note on the talk page there about citation style. Thanks for your interest in the topic and your assistance! -- Beland 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for mediation/Qanun

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Qanun, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
Same condition:
Please read history of these articles and so the articles Ceng , Afghan Rubab.

ZANDWEBT

[edit] Congo Wars

Hi Publicus, Thank you for the attention you're giving to the much overlooked Congo wars articles. I would like to request that you group your edits, using preview for intermediate steps. A history with multiple small edits, especially if they are not marked as minor, makes it harder for other editors to scan the history when they are looking for a specific edit or editor. Thanks again, BT 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, BT. I was just adding things as I found them. Those articles sure are a mess. I'll do more previewing from now on. Thanks for the tip.Publicus 20:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angolan Civil War

Thanks for your organization of the Angolan history section. I changed back the edit you made to the Angolan Civil War info box. The South African Republic was dissolved in 1900; the participant in Angola's conflict (from about 1975 to 1991) was the modern Republic of South Africa, also known simply as South Africa. But it may be useful to change the flag picture from the current SA flag to the SA flag of the time. If you have thoughts, post them on the talk page. --Danny Reese 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem Danny. Whatever is more accurate--I just wanted to distinquish between apartheid SA and modern-day SA. Publicus 15:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of conflicts in Africa in infoboxes

Hi! Very nice work on inserting infoboxes into various war articles. I just wanted to point out, however, that (per the guidelines here), "Conflicts in Africa" should not be used for the partof= field, as the conflicts do not form a recognizable series of wars, but are merely incidentally related by geography. In such cases, standard practice is to simply leave that field blank. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Not a problem. I'll go back and undo the "part of"s that I added. Thanks for the tip. Publicus 15:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Campaignbox for Gulf Wars

Short answer: it's a political mess that nobody really wants to wade into merely because of a campaignbox link.

Long answer: it's never been clear what the relationship between those two articles is. At some points, the 2003 invasion article was clearly a sub-article of the Iraq War article (which included everything from 2003 on). At other points, the Iraq War article would be trimmed to include only post-invasion material. (There were also a number of other, more bizarre, configurations.) Many of these changes were a result of fighting over which article, if any, could be presented as a "coalition victory". I'm not sure when exactly the campaignbox structure diverged from that of the article; but if you're willing to deal with a possible fight over removing the extra link, please be my guest!

(As an aside, a campaignbox for the Iraq War would probably be very helpful at some point; we have dozens of articles on various operations that aren't linked in any meaningful way.) Kirill Lokshin 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer--I'll see what people think about taking off the "invasion of Iraq" link in the campaignbox--shouldn't be too bad, since the Iraq war will still be there.

As far as a campaignbox for the Iraq war, that might be tricky--too many operations and not enough battles--but it would be an interesting project, maybe I'll see what's out there. Publicus 14:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like FearGod started a campaignbox for the Iraq War. Publicus 14:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit comments

An edit such as this is often deserving of an edit comment. I have 1,536 articles on my watchlist. If I had to scroll through and vet each thousand and a half article deltas each time, instead of being able to trust a Fine, Upstanding User such as yerself to summarize the delta, it would take oh-so-much longer. Thank you. xoxo, ... aa:talk 15:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing--as a Fine Upstanding User I'll try my best. Publicus 17:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References cleanup

Beland, when you have a chance can you check out the references again on Global strategic petroleum reserves. I tried to clean them up. Thanks. Publicus 20:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure; my reply is on Talk:Global strategic petroleum reserves. -- Beland 21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Operation Iraqi Freedom Troop Deployment

Nicely done. --Patchouli 03:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Patchouli. That whole troop deployment section was a little messy. Publicus 12:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Colbert Report

Your recent edit [2] looks like vandalism and I'm just asking for an explanation. You seem to be a good user with no history of vandalism yet you added this uncited claim that looks very much like the vandalism that occured on the elephant page. Gdo01 19:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just having some fun Gdo01. I was hoping to put some of the elephant nonsense on Colbert's page. Sorry to be a pain. Publicus 19:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem but I don't understand why users use their Wikipedia accounts to have fun. I personally would have done it as an ip edit but thats just me. Gdo01 19:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CW1 campaign box

It's totally wrong. There were several other large-scale engagements - a succession of Chechen "capitals", siege of Bamut, Gudermes, Shatoi, Grozny March, Grozny August, etc. --HanzoHattori 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran Iraq War

The USA was a combatant. It used its navy and airforce against Iran, it funded and supplied Iraq, and helped Iraq strategically. One of the biggest offensives by the USA was destroying the entire Iranian navy in the Persian Gulf. Please do not take out the information again.Khosrow II 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaignbox style

The prevailing convention for formatting campaignboxes has been to leave them as pure chronological lists unless absolutely necessary (even for longer boxes), rather than putting in more complex formatting. In particular, adding headings into the box is generally unnecessary—it's not so large as to require subdivision (which should be done via splitting into multiple boxes in any case)—and only serves to increase the length and introduce an arbitrary division into the chronology of the war.

Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No prob--the list of battles was just getting long, I was trying to put a little bit of ease in the navigation. Publicus 17:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on creating Template:Campaignbox Mexican-American War! One thing, though: when you're merging campaignboxes like that, it's important to redirect all the subsidiary ones that got merged in to the main campaignbox; otherwise, we have a bunch of redundant templates hanging around. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 19:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't sure that I should merge the various campaigns into the Mex-Amer box, it looks like someone put some work into creating all the box for the various campaigns. If you think different let me know, otherwise I was going to leave alone. Publicus 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I've already merged them, so no need to bother. ;-)
(In general, though, the vast majority of cases where there's a bunch of sub-campaignboxes but no overall campaingbox for the war is an artifact of piecemeal template creation over time, rather than a deliberate decision to split them; it's usually safe to merge the boxes together in such cases.) Kirill Lokshin 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaignbox work

For your diligent creation and improvement of campaignbox templates, I hereby bestow upon you the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award. Kirill Lokshin 20:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
For your diligent creation and improvement of campaignbox templates, I hereby bestow upon you the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award. Kirill Lokshin 20:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Russo-Ottoman War Series

Is there any reason we can't just convert it into a regular campaignbox? Kirill Lokshin 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I was checking with you, because I wasn't sure about the current "series" box style. I'll check with the creator. Publicus 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's an artifact of the project not having much presence in that particular area; but everything else is in campaignbox form, so leaving a few sets of wars in other layouts seems pointless. Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's kind of what I thought. I asked Tommiks(the creator) just in case, since it did look like it had a recent edit history. Publicus 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok; that's fine, then.
Incidentally, as long as you're working on these: any chance that you could handle moving the articles to the proper (parenthesized) names? :-) Kirill Lokshin 18:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, no prob. That will give me something to do. But what exactly is the "proper parenthesized name"? Are you talking about a redirect or something? Any wikipedia help links on this would be welcome. Publicus 19:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the year should be in parentheses rather than following a comma; thus, the form is "Russo-Turkish War (X-Y)" rather than "Russo-Turkish War, X-Y". Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 19:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irak

It is a declaration from this Sunday made by the president of Romania, who says mostly "Romania won't withdraw it's troops from Irak". At the end of this summer, the ministry of Defense of Romania asked the withdrawn of the Romanian troops, however the decision was defavourable to the withdrawn. Anyway, after that there was some time when nothing new appeared, then President Basescu came with this declaration.--Danutz

[edit] Hundred Years' War campaignboxes

Heh, looks like we were working at cross-purposes there for a bit. ;-)

I was thinking that, as we've created the three subsidiary campaignboxes, we can move all the battles there and use the old one to link the three phases; would that work, or is there some subtlety that I'm missing about dividing the war that way? Kirill Lokshin 16:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha, no you read my mind. I only added the three sub boxes that someone created earlier to make sure we could track them. My next step later today was to attempt a merge of the phases into the larger 100 Years box.

One slight problem with that--I noticed that some of the later battles in the 100 years box might not necessarily fit into the one of the three phases. I was going to do some detective work and see where exactly these fit. Publicus 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the post-Joan battles can probably be lumped in with the last period (similarly to how there's a few battles after the technical end of the Thirty Years' War that are included in that campaignbox); alternately, we could create a fourth box, but I'm not sure how useful that would be. Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Good call, those post-Joan battles can certainly be lumped into the last period--the articles don't mention a fourth phase, so it's probably not worth the effort to create another box just for those battles. Publicus 17:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saudi Arabian Army

hello friend :) thanx for editing this Article , but here is some points to discuss :)

  • the offical name is "Saudi Arabian Army" , so i got to rev this edit :)
  • the new view of the Ranks is a little bit messy , i'll Rev that also.
  • i'll keep the edits of the Structure untill you add acceptible sources within 7 days :) and thanx again for co-operation , we just need to keep true information on the encyclopedia. have a nice day Ammar 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries on the rev. Ok, I added the source on the structure sect. Not to quibble, but are you sure the official name is the Saudi Army--I saw several sources mentioning a "Royal Saudi Land Force?" Publicus 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War

As you participated in the previous discussion, you may be interested in Talk:Iraq_War#RFC. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article change

Hi. I saw your changes to the Recent History section. thanks for your help./ Hope you find this section useful. I also added a note trying to explain the usage and value of this section. Let me know if you think the note is superfluous. Basically, i feel that some articles describing recent events should have a "recent history" section, in order to easily track and add recent developments. Thanks for your help. See you. --Sm8900 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. The "recent history" section is a great addition to the article--I think the note is helpful to people and will hopefully preclude anyone editing it without understanding its purpose. One thing to think about with a recent history section is when to move the recent events out of the iraq war article and into the "timeline of the iraq war" or the "iraq war 200X" pages. Just something to think about going forward.Publicus 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! I appreciate the feedback and support. it's good to have someone to run this by. I've been looking for some places to lay out some ideas here and there. I've been doing a simlar effort for History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That article only went up to 1987 when I found it. i added material all the way up to present-day, and have now been incrementally adding new developments and citations, as they come out. I feel this is a good way to steadily expand the scope and usefulness of Wikipedia. So it's good to have your feedback. Thanks very much. --Sm8900 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favor

Hello I noticed you made some editions to the article Iraq Spring Fighting of 2004 before and if you are interested in the Iraq war I wanted to ask you a favore. I think that this article Iraq Spring Fighting of 2004 needs to stick. But a user CJKing has nominated it for deletion. I think that it should stick because it shows the inital uprising of the Mahdy army and the fight for Anbar that was in the same time frame. I draw paralels with the Tet offensive so I think like the Vietnam war article has the Tet offensive Iraq should have this. So if you would add your vote for deletion or to keep. But I would apreciate if you would back me up on this to keep.Thank you Top Gun 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No worries, Top Gun. I added my thoughts on keeping the article. No favor necessary, we need more articles like this where we break out the war into more easily handled pieces. Publicus 15:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on keeping the article. I saw your opinion on finding an apropriat name for the article, I know it's not the best one, like Tet this one should also have an apropriat one. I thought about the name The Mahdy Uprising but that would only cover the Shia part of the insurgency, what about the uprising in Anbar, so what do you think of The Mahdy and Anbar Uprisings. Send me your opinion. Thanks again. Top Gun 21:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The name you suggested does work a little better than the current one. Although I think we should hold off a little until we get some feedback from either the Coalition forces or the Mahdi Army and Insurgents--to just see if there's any current names they are using for this period. Especially the Mahdi Army, I could see them having a particular name for this, since it involved fighting the coalition in their holy city. Publicus 15:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq and WoT

As you have participated in this discussion in the past, I invite you to participate in discussion on the topic of the relationship between the Iraq War and the US-led War on Terrorism campaign at this location. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks for Alternate KIA/Executed symbol

Ah, no problem. The issue had raised a few concerns, so having an alternate is good. I'm not entirely sure whether the symbol is a good one, or if it renders correctly in all browsers; but it was the best I could find on short notice. Kirill Lokshin 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi insurgent dead

Hi. I did not want to discuss this in the chaos of the Iraq War talk page. I agree with you about this edit summary: "al Qaeda source for 4K dead, prob not best source)". But the page you linked to (List of Insurgents killed in Iraq) is not very useful either. It only lists a few thousand insurgents dead. No one has a clue really. I have read everything I can find. Deaths in Iraq are mostly listed by type of wound in the morgues, hospitals, etc.. Gunshot, explosion, car accident, etc.. Explosion deaths could be coalition bombs, car bombs, etc.. They don't have a clue most of the time whether they were insurgents, criminals, murder victims, civilians, etc.. Estimates (complete guesses) range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of insurgents killed. --Timeshifter 23:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that the number of insurgents killed is a pretty hard number to find. I searched for quite awhile trying to find someone who was tracking it. I also agree that the new article "List of Insurgents killed" is not that helpful now. However, consider two things: First, the war has been going on for almost 4 years and no one appears to be (publicly--I'm sure DoD has an idea) tracking the number of insurgents killed. To me that is unacceptable. Second, look at the progress made in tracking other difficult number such as contractors killed/wounded or even just Iraqi killed/wounded. Hopefully, by creating a list of reported incidents we can at least get a picture of the insurgent casualties as well.

As far as reporting, I also agree it is a problem to find out if a reported death is an insurgent. That's why I'm only adding those deaths reported by by either the media or coalition forces as "insurgents killed." For now, I've also linked to the various battles/ops where people have reported insurgents killed, but those probably should be verified in some way as well.

Finally, as far as the number so far being so low, the article was just created--I'm sure once more people start adding the reported deaths the number might start to get closer to a ball-park figure (altho it will never be totally accurate due to the reasons you listed). Publicus 19:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

IBC isn't doing it. DoD is not putting out anything honest. According to the Iraq Study Group. Maybe they have numbers they are keeping secret. Maybe not. They don't have numbers for places they can't get into. Places they bomb, and places they can't hold. Lancet says even the families don't know, or will not admit, if their dead, were fighters. We may never know. Maybe years later when another Lancet survey is done after the peace, and after the civil war revenge killings are over, they might get honest answers about household dead being fighters. The household surveys got local death certificates for the vast majority. But the death cerficates only give the cause of death. And a gunshot wound can be from a simple murder, a revenge killing, crossfire, or being combatant. Only the last one counts for sure as being an insurgent.
I suggest not putting in numbers in the infobox. I will start a section in Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 for insurgent deaths. We can start putting quotes there from various articles that show the difficulty in getting any estimates. Plus we can link to that page listing a few of the insurgent deaths. We can also put the quote with foreign insurgent number. People can decide for themselves how credible it is. I have no idea how credible it is. --Timeshifter 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The more info the merrier I always say. But post this proposal on the Iraq war talk page and see what people say.Publicus 13:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I will go ahead and do it on Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 since there is room there for an additional section called "Insurgent dead" or something like that. Then you can decide what to use from it in the infobox. I am not up for another brawl on the Iraq War page. :)
About the Lancet household survey, I may not be remembering it right in what I said in my earlier comment. Now that I think about it, I don't think they even asked if the dead were fighters or not. I remember that the organizers of Lancet survey did everything possible to minimize the risk to the surveyors. Asking about anybody's loyalties would have been extremely hazardous. --Timeshifter 14:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok sounds good. I also want to see if anyone takes the time to track this number, especially since it involves a lot of back-filling. And on the survey, I don't remember seeing anything about the survey asking if the deceased was a combatant--definitely would have been more dangerous and I doubt many family members would even know if their loved one was an "insurgent" or not. I read the other day somewhere about a guy who was forced to carry a gun around his neighborhood with one of the local militias. He did it for a week or so and then skipped town with his family. With the screwy logic of war, if this poor guy had died because either the Iraqi Army or coalition forces shot him, he would have been labeled an insurgent--even tho his family would say that is definitely not the case. War is just insane. Publicus 16:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have added some insurgent killed to the total you are gathering up at your list and will see in the coming days to add more. But listen I already have a number that is probably the most accurate. Listen, I have been tracking both the insurgent and coalition deaths since the start of the war, and I am at 8,836 insurgent dead currently (this includes at least 956 suicide bombers). I know this number can not be used without any references, but here is at least a number at which we should look to get to by compaling data.--Top Gun 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey Top Gun, sounds interesting. Where'd you find the 8,836 number? I've been looking all over for something like that, but haven't found anything even close. As far as the suicide bomber number, I haven't been adding those to the list because I'm not sure how to count those--insurgent or terrorist--but if you have sources feel free to list. Hopefully, this list can give us a better sense of the war. Publicus 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Over the past years I tracked the coalition and insurgent deaths at http://www.icasualties.org/oif and every time an insurgent death is reported I add it to my count. We can just go there and check through their records. They have a record of all news from Iraq in the past four years. We just check each of them metodicly and add those that mention deaths of insurgents, thats how I came up with the number of 1,340 killed during the Iraq Spring fighting. Just look at that site and look under News Archive, it's at the botom right under the latest news. I will start checking probably those and then add the info on the list. You should check it also. As for the suicide bombers they should be added to because they are also insurgents, soldiers of the Iraqi resistance or whatever you want to call them because they are something like the Japanis kamikazes from WWII. I have already checked up to the 53rd week including it. --Top Gun 07:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I managed to push the number of insurgents killed up by several hundreds more to 4,800 killed and will continue checking on sources.--Top Gun 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice job Top Gun--it's pretty painful work. Publicus 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for the Barnstar Publicus.--Top Gun 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No worries Top Gun. For poring over news archives you certainly deserve it. Publicus 21:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the barnstar

LOL. Thanks for the barnstar. I think I deserve a Purple Heart too. I am still recovering from my wounds. :) --Timeshifter 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

haha, I don't think Wikipedia has those--maybe that's another type of Barnstar they should get? You are welcome, it was a long tough debate on all sides, I just hope the agreement works for everyone. Publicus 21:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I thank you as well. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide bombers

I have found a list right here on Wikipedia of suicide bomings in Iraq since 2003 and have linked the list of killed insurgents to that and have made two totals on the list of killed insurgents those that were not and those that were suicide bombers so people could see how many people are blowing themselves up over there. So for the list to be exact we should update the list of suicide bomings also. --Top Gun 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on the insurgent list

I have managed to push the number of insurgent dead to more than 6,050. But am running out of sources at a great speed and still have to get to a number that is at least to some extent exact. According to my numbers the number of insurgents killed is close to 8,900, that means another 2,560 are still unacounted for, at least 550 of those are unacounted suicide bombers. I will take a break for a few days but will be back to continue editing. When we reach a number that is more than 7,000 then we should at least chenge the sentance on the main Iraq war page where in the infobox beside the number of insurgent killed it says the number is based on a very incomplete list of reports. I wouldn't say it would be a very incomplete list of reports anymore with more than 7,000 confirmed killed. We should at least say something like a incomplete list without the very.Bye --Top Gun 23:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make a change on the description of the list at the Iraq War info box. Again, nice work. Publicus 14:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi security forces dead

Hello could you do something for me, I have been blocked for a few days so I can not edit as a registered user, I cna when I am loged out but can not when loged in. So ehre is the problem I have found out a referenc from CNN that the 12,000 killed Iraqi security forces that are put in the info box on the main Iraq war page is incorect. Here is the reference so check it out [3]. It's not 12,000 killed but 12,000 casualties. It's 4,000 killed and 8,000 wounded. And it's not for the entire war but just from september 2004. So if you could instead of me change the number from 12,000 to 4,000 killed in the infobox and put the reference. And also change the number of insurgent dead you added 15 killed that I already added yesterday. I will wait for your reply. Thank you.Top Gun 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello TopGun, as a matter of policy I don't make edits for people who are blocked from editing. It's nothing personal I just don't want to get in the middle of anything. I'm sure you'll understand. The casualties number for Iraqi Security Forces can wait until you add the source. I think I was the one who added the 12K number for dead, but if you have a better source--great! I'll make the change on the insurgents, sorry about that, I thought that incident wasn't covered yet. Publicus 18:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am back Publicus and have updated all of the numbers now to more than 7,130.Top Gun 21:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good TopGun, looks like you're getting closer to that 8K number you had previously totaled. Publicus 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well just another 1,500 to go, of those 500 are going to be suicide bombers by my count. But I think that I will be short by at least 1,000 because there is realy realy little sources on insurgents killed in 2003, I have managed to find sources only on around 150 killed in 2003 but there were certanly more than that killed that year. There are just no news sources for that year. Also I have updated the numbers of killed security forces on the Iraq war main page. Acording to the CNN source when they said the number 12,000 it was 4,000 killed and 8,000 wounded and that was only the police so I have put 4,000 killed (police only) and in comparison to the icasualties.org number of 6,150 security forces dead put 2,150 killed (military only).Top Gun 22:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Graphic of the Army Structure

I'm currently working on a project to create graphics of the structure of the most important Armies. i.e. French Army; German Army; Italian Army I also want to make a graphic of the structure of the Saudi Arabian Army, but the information at this point is not sufficient, as there is no information what units compose the single brigades (also what kinfd of units). User Ammar suggested that you might have this information. Also the Battalion names and/or numbers? Thanks noclador 07:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What level of detail are you interested in? Publicus 13:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Battalions and up: Divisions, Brigades, Regiments- Have a look at the graphics of the structure of the US- Marine Expeditionary Forces i made today:

As you can see, i'm putting even some Companies in (if they are relevant), but mostly i'm intersted in making a graph that shows the command chain: Divison -> Brigades -> Regiments -> Battalions. Noclador 13:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added some detail that should help-check my sandbox page. RSLF is currently undergoing a transition from brigade to division org, so I'm not exactly sure how you want to setup your structure chart. When I have some more time I'll see what else I can add to this. I hope this helps. Publicus 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Publicus- it is a start, but still not detailed enough for a grapic (Battalion names/numbers are still missing) Let us hope the Saudi Army will put the information on their homepage after the transition is done. noclador 12:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War in Afghanistan 2001

Yes. The link you have provided lists the casualties in ALL theater of OEF (Philippines, etc.), not just OEF - Afghanistan, while my link clearly lists the casualties "In and Around Afghanistan". 190.10.0.111 14:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm checking with my source to see what exactly they are counting. I proposed an edit hold on this at the discussion page for the War in Afghanistan. Publicus 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet War in Afghanistan

I saw that you are interested in the war in Afghanistan with the Soviets so wanted to let you know that I added a new battle there Battle for Hill 3234, check it out and give me a reply.Top Gun 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I am interested the Soviet War in Afghanistan. The Battle for Hill 3234 looks like a pretty good article--the battle seemed pretty intense from the description you added. I made some minor text changes and some wiki links. When you have some time we should add some sources, esp for the casualties. Publicus 23:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob.Top Gun 07:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Added another battle to the soviet war in Afghanistan The Maravar Battle.Top Gun 18:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coalition wounded. Iraq War

The list format looks good. The additional note is very helpful too. Thanks for your efforts.

I like how you put the total wounded number in bold text. It helps avoid confusion when there is a long list of wounded subtotal categories preceding it.

I just put the total coalition dead in bold text also. For the same reason. --Timeshifter 20:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit compliment Timeshifter. I was just trying to make it a little clearer with all the subcategories. Good call on bold text for total dead, much easier to read. Publicus 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War Troop Deployment Template

Publius, I have cited my sources for the prev. version that you reverted as best as I can. But was it really necessary to revert all of that information without first adding a notice or forewarning me? Seems a little harsh to me...but then again you are obviously more experienced with Wikipedia so I'll trust your judgement. --Buttockhat 18:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I really apologize for that--I didn't want to appear harsh on my revert. I just wanted to make sure the deployments were cited. Thank you for your work. Again, sorry about that I was probably a little hasty in reverting. Publicus 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Enlisted_saudi_army_private_first_class.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Enlisted_saudi_army_private_first_class.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi security forces casualties

Wanted to run this by you before making changes. You put according to that report that there have been 49,000 casualties among the security forces in Iraq. But should we put that because a reader would then think 49,000 dead. The links I provided clearly stated an overall number of killed and even a breakdown between military and police. The number is around 7,400 killed. Accoridng to your report that would mean around 41,600 wounded. We should include the report but along with the links I provided about the killed. We should leave the number of dead I compiled according to the links and also provide your link and state around 41,500 wounded if the numbers are right. What do you think. P.S.Also one more thing I have been making some progres finaly with the number of insurgent dead suicide bombers and managed to up the number above 850. That means just around 200 more to identify and we should get a very very very good number on the overal number of suicide bombers killed. As for the ground infantry of the insurgents I am still short by at least 1,000 killed.Top Gun

Hey TopGun, it's your call. If you think your source with both wounded AND killed works better than just a number ofr casualties, then that sounds like a good edit. I only added it because it seemed like a more accurate overall number. Publicus 14:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I just fought that we should need a breakdown among the wounded and killed and icasualties.org and that CNN article about 4,000 killed police officers are good sources.Top Gun


[edit] The other 244 U.S. dead in Iraq

Publicus, you wrote: "Hey Timeshifter do you know how many of the 244 US civilians killed in Iraq are government personnel vs contractors? I haven't seen any number of US government personnel, State Dept, DefDept, etc--killed in Iraq."

Sorry, I took so long to get back to you. I don't check the Iraq War talk page as much. I check the article more often just to check up on the casualties section and the infobox. I haven't seen any breakdown on the 244 US dead. I would like to know that too. Here is the only info in the article:
"Since Iraq reconstruction began, 916 death claims for civilian contractors working on U.S.-funded projects in Iraq have been filed. In the quarter ending March 31, 2007, the Department of Labor reported 146 new death claims. DoS reports that 16 U.S. civilians died in Iraq this quarter. Since the beginning of the U.S. reconstruction effort, 224 U.S. civilians have died in Iraq."
The part I emphasized doesn't sound like they are State Department or Defence Dept, though I could be wrong.
Here is the main reference link:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/04/reconstruction_.html
The above quote is from this long PDF:
http://www.sigir.mil/reports/quarterlyreports/Apr07/pdf/Report_-_April_2007_Complete.pdf
Its title is listed as "April 30, 2007 Quarterly Report to Congress (Highlights, All Sections and Appendices)" on this page:
http://www.sigir.mil/reports/quarterlyreports/Apr07/Default.aspx --Timeshifter 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries on getting back to me. Thanks for the links I'll check them out. Publicus 12:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you updated the contractor wounded, and linked to this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/world/middleeast/19contractors.html?ref=todayspaper
That requires a login. Can you tell me the article title? I can probably find the full text of the article in an archive such as at truthout.com, or elsewhere by doing a Google search for the title. --Timeshifter 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about that, forgot it's a registered site. The title is "Contractor Deaths in Iraq Soar to Record" May 19, 2007. Thanks for the catch. Publicus 15:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BIG PROBLEM

Hey Publicus we have a big problem, some guy has nominated the List of Insurgents killed in Iraq for deletion, just as we have confirmed the deaths of almost 10,000 insurgents on the list. Do you know how hard it was to do that. Our list is probably the most comprehensive there is. If you will vote for the keep of the article that will be great. Bye.Top Gun

Hey where are you? Timeshifter, Edison and me are trying to hold of those guys that want to delete the article. Currently it is three KEEP, three DELETE and one NEUTRAL (but KEEP comments). We need you.Top Gun

Just added my 50 cents. Sorry so long I wanted to really reinforce my point. Thanks for letting me know TopGun. Publicus 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No prob.Top Gun

Haven't seen your comment on the deletion discussion page.Top Gun

There was an edit conflict-had to rewrite everything, should be there. Publicus 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK.Top Gun

You know, however the vote turns out for the article, but I think that it will not be deleted, I think that we should maybe change a little bit the style, the look, of the article. Just like some of the users that cast the keep vote said. Little less on the numbers more on the wording. We should come up with a new system to count the numbers of the killed. But still keeping the already verifyed numbers and references.Top Gun

[edit] Oil shale

Hi Publicus. You have made lot of useful edits on the oil shale article. This article has developed quite well, but still some more expert assistance is needed. I hope you would pleased helping to improve it. I put some questions and issues to the talk page. Thank you in advance. Beagel 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Publicus. I wonder if you may be interested to help developing Oil shale and its spin-off articles. I listed Oil shale for the new peer review and related spin-off articles (Oil shale extraction, Oil shale geology, Oil shale industry, History of the oil shale industry, Oil shale reserves, Oil shale economics, and Environmental effects of oil shale industry) for the peer review. Your comments and edits will be most welcome. The intention is to have these articles ready for the GA and FA nominations.Beagel 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely Beagel. I'll see what help I can lend to the pages. Publicus 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of killed insurgents for january to 1st of june 2007

Check this out I have found an article in which a U.S. general said that since january through the end of May 3,180 enemy fighters have been killed. According to are count from various news sources around 1,900 fighters have been killed during this period. Here it is http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0601/p01s04-woiq.html . What do you think should we replace the number of 1,900 with this one or should we leave it as it is, because a number like 3,180 sounds to me a little far feched. If it's true great a solid number for the first half of this year, but what if it's not true and the number is inflated, a little information warfare you know, because again 3,180 in five months? During the WORST fighting in 2004 we have confirmed that that WHOLE year around 3,500 were killed. So what do you think? Should we go with this new number or leave the old one?Top Gun 15:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry so long on my reply--I was on vacation. I think we should add that reference as a possible number of casualties, but stick with the overall sourced number for now. Its similar to what we did on the al Qaeda source that said 4,000 foreign fighters had been killed in Iraq. Just my opinion, but going with multiple sources than just one news story seems like the safer course. Over time, I'm hoping that the Pentagon releases more of the casualty counts they have been tracking. Perhaps we might see them when Petraus gives his "surge" report in September. Publicus 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope so.Top Gun

[edit] Vandalism to Dick Cheney

Your edit to Dick Cheney constitutes vandalism. You've been editing long enough to know this, and continued edits such as these can result in a block being placed on your account. Also realize falsifying copyright tags as you did on Image:2007-06-21 Rahm Cheney Chart.jpg is extremely unacceptable. - auburnpilot talk 21:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Chill. Publicus 20:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War Map

I can edit this map with Photoshop if you need. Just let me know exactly what needs to be added. -- VegitaU 20:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be fantastic VegitaU, much better than me muddling thru Photoshop. There's currently two map images that I think would be helpful to have integrated into the overall Iraq war map.
Image:Iraq invasion map US Army CMH.jpg
This map shows the invasion route by coalition forces. While a great map, since there's just a couple of items on it I was thinking that the content could somehow be added to the overall war map.
Image:Sunni triangle.jpg
Secondly, the map showing the Sunni triangle looks like another good candidate for addition into a war map. Again, another great map that just has one element which could be added to the overall war map.

Any help on this would be fantastic. Of course, if you think these edits are a bad idea or wouldn't work with the overall map, please let me know. Publicus 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a tall order. I'll try and have something by the end of the day. I think that the invasion map looks better than mine for our purposes so I'll incorporate everything onto that template. -- VegitaU 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it's done... Whew! -- VegitaU 04:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciate it... let me know if you need other graphics work done. Can't promise I'll get right on it, but I'll definitely take a look. -- VegitaU 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No thank you--the map looks fantastic, it really helps the overall article to have all the map info in one spot. I'll let you know about further graphics work, I'm sure there will be something. Publicus 17:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 15:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, let me take a look and I'll get back to you. Publicus 17:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of insurgents killed in Iraq

List of insurgents killed in Iraq, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of insurgents killed in Iraq satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of insurgents killed in Iraq and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of insurgents killed in Iraq during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. D4g0thur 09:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oil reserves edits

Please discuss your recent edits to Oil reserves. Thanks Publicus 14:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I have started the discussions, on the talk page, we will go one at a time, one each issue. --Savedthat 23:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi soldiers and Helicopter

Do you have any objections to the Iraqi Soldiers and Helicopter image? ~Rangeley (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War Casus Belli

Hi, could you help direct me to the discussion where it was agreed to include the war on terrorism as a casus belli for the Iraq War? Thanks,Nwe 15:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Nwe. Here's a link to get started and then check the next archived talk page for the resolution--if I remember correctly this particular discussion was actually the second time this issue was argued, however it's relevant because this is the source of the current agreement. Publicus 14:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leading image

In the end, we really didn't come to much consensus. You can see here basically the closest that we came though. Hope it helps! Oberiko 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please fix Iraq War

"and that and 51% of the population consider attacks" => "and that 51% of the population consider attacks"

Thanks. Why is even the talk page locked? Ridiculous. 83.67.217.254 17:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Kennedy-compound-nat-park-serv.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kennedy-compound-nat-park-serv.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of John Granville

An editor has nominated John Granville, 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/John Granville 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) 03:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tuberculosis and illegal immig/alien vs native born

First, it does not matter to the bacteria whether the person has legal rights or is an illegal entrant immigrant. Second, I am positive that the claim on that page is factually wrong. It mentions the active disease and not merely having been expose to the bacterium. Some 40% of all Americans, I think, test positive for exposure but thre is not as many active tuberculosis cases. It takes a whole lot more to contract the disease. The tubercolsis problem is not an immigration problem and the distribution of the bacterium does NOT depend on illegal vs. legal status. Do you know where the information on the distinction between the active disease and merely testing positive? Radio Guy (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, the tuberculosis problem is more related to over-use of anti-biotics and thereby drug-resistant TB bugs--not really illegal immigration. For info on that I would check the CDC and the World Health Organization. Although I do think your estimate of the number of Americans who test positive for exposure to TB is a little high--just based on personal experience I believe the number is much lower, around 10-15% of the U.S. population would test positive for exposure to TB. This would depend on where you were testing the population tho--in a big city with a lot of international travel, such as NYC, the rate might be a little higher. Hope this helps. Publicus 15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Oil reserves by country

A tag has been placed on Template:Oil reserves by country requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An improved navigation template for Peak oil

Hello, I saw your edit to Category:People associated with peak oil. I'm working on an improved navigation template for articles relating to Peak oil that uses the {{Navbox}} template:

Let me know if you have any comments or suggestions. The colors, captions, links, etc. are just tentative. The colors don't look too good; I copied this from some other template. Do you know a suitable name for this template? We already have the small {{PeakOil}} template which is like an infobox, so I guess [[Template:Peak oil]] is still available. A navigation template that uses {{Navbox}} could go at the bottom of peak oil articles. (I don't know how to solve the problems posed by peak oil, but we can at least make a nice navigation template. When society is collapsing all around us during the Long Emergency, at least our templates will look good.) --Teratornis (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Teratornis, The nav template looks great. I made one small edit, added a cat to the "issues". As far as a name, the simpler the better so I'd just go with the Template:Peak oil name. No worries on the colors, although it would be cool to do a box with black background colors and white text--you know, symbolizing all that oil that won't be around in a few years. Publicus 15:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. {{Peak oil}} it will be. I haven't seen many light text on dark background themes on Wikipedia. There might be something in the Manual of style about that (it seems if we never see something on Wikipedia, there is some guideline against it). I will start with the gray colors of {{PeakOil}}. Other people can then bang on it and edit-war over the design (heh). On another note, {{Navbox}} allows for an icon graphic, so I added Image:Hubbert peak oil plot.svg. I need to document it properly with the {{documentation}} template, and figure out what WikiProject it belongs in; Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy looks like a good bet. I also added a group (row) for "Organizations" with links to ASPO (the only such organization I could find to link to, initially). Also, did you see my comments and questions here:
I believe we Wikipedians are sitting on an important piece of the peak oil mitigation puzzle. We are building Wikipedia, one of the most complex human artifacts, with almost no need for workers to physically travel anywhere. Unfortunately, it might be original research to point this out, unless I can find (or perhaps write) a reliable published source that explains how wiki technology can help us eliminate transportation waste. It probably does not help that Jimmy Wales is himself a huge fan of petroleum-wasting jet travel, as he constantly travels the world to physically meet Wikipedians (but little of this travel is directly about getting work done). Obviously we need to virtualize all of that activity when it becomes impossible to sustain with jet fuel. --Teratornis (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PKK & Turkish casualties

Maybe your right, I had already previously added the 175 kurds killed in the bombings in december to the insurgent toll. OK, we'll do it this way : I will remove those 175 from the insurgent toll and we will put the current number of 328 killed PKK rebels in a seperate section of the box but on the side of the Insurgents. Deal?--Top Gun 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If the conflict hadn't ramped up I think the old system would have worked fine. But since Turkey has invaded, the number of casualties are getting significant and there might be confusion if people look at a number that is a mix of insurgents and PKK--not to mention the Turkish troops casualties. Publicus 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Campaignbox Russo-Turkish War (1806-1812)

A tag has been placed on Template:Campaignbox Russo-Turkish War (1806-1812) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Campaignbox Sri Lanka massacres

A tag has been placed on Template:Campaignbox Sri Lanka massacres requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)