User talk:Perelada

Welcome!

Hello, Perelada, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kingturtle (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition casualties in in Afghanistan[edit]

Since you are a regular contributor to this article I would like to tell you that most of the content with the names and specific incidents of soldiers killed has been moved to other articles. A new article American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan has been created where all American soldiers killed will be listed from now on. Also the British, Canadian, Australian and German soldiers killed also have their own lists in their respectiv articles. Hope you contribute to them as well.BobaFett85 (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article as it is was getting to large. Several editors besides me, including Mike McGregor (Can) and Jezarnold, expressed their concern about this before. I agreed with them. I asked them if they agree with my edit and they did so I moved the names, units and causes of death to the new article. The article coalition casualties in Afghanistan should be a short overview article in any case. You can easily now edit the new article. The additions of German, Canadian and UK casualties were also unnecesary since they have their own articles as well. You can adapt the new article as much as you want, the new article also includes a number of deaths you missed. But now your help is needed. The new article has been nominated for deletion. Your help to keep it and develope it even further would be apreciated.BobaFett85 (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen I see you have gotten a bit too much worried. So I will try and help you feel better. All your data, everything you did to the article is not lost. You can always revert my edits and recover the data. No age or hometown was added on the new list because I created the article only a week ago and took the time to list the soldiers and circumstances first before doing anything else. We can add if you want their age and hometown to the article very easy. But we have to deal with this new problem now. I think you agree with me the list is needed. So let's try and keep the article from deletion. I already sent messages to three other editors who agree with us the list is needed so they can help us, I am confident they will respond when they get the messages. What you can do is to say at the discussion that you want the article to be keept. If we manage to keep it we will expand the article even further with their age and hometowns and even maybe go deeper into the circumstanes of their deaths. If they delete the article then we will return the information to the old article. Ok?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can easily recover all of you references and put them insted of the current ones in the article, I will gladly help you. But right now I need your help to keep the article from deletion. So if you want to keep it state your vote at the discussion eather as keep or delete.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the message you sent to Chamal. I didn't use all of those other references given by you because I was in a rush to finish the list as soon as posible. I will gladly reinsert all of your links in this new article. But, again, for now we need to keep the article, so cast your vote at the deletion discussion page.BobaFett85 (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you didn't cast your vote for or against deletion over at the discussion page, you should if you want to keep the list of soldiers killed.BobaFett85 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise has been found. The article on US casualties will only deal with the number of casualties, two of them, the DoD's and icasualties.org's. The names and incidents of Europian soldiers killed in Afghanistan have been reintroduced into the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. Your text, the one you did. So you can continue updating that list. However, you can put on the list only Europian soldiers since putting the Americans would make the list too long and the Canadians, Australians and Britons have been excluded since they have their own lists of casualties so their names are in those articles.BobaFett85 (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:EyeSerene. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your note, you seem to be arguing that there should be more, rather than less, information about the casualties - I would refer you to WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which explicitly forbids us from including such information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the sort of information you'd like to include would probably be better on another site. Incidentally, I'm not American, although I have served in my own country's armed forces and have great respect for my "brothers in arms" of whatever nationality. My nominating the article for deletion was purely an editorial policy decision, and I take the same view about any similar articles. EyeSerene^talk 11:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chamal ^talk 11:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about your previous comment; no offence taken (and permit me to congratulate you on your command of English!). You asked why previous material had been deleted: the previous deletion discussion can be found here, and if you take a look at the various article-writing policies and guidelines I've listed on the AfD you'll hopefully see why some of us believe the current article is problematic too. Some useful information for discussing articles for deletion can be found here. EyeSerene^talk 12:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]