Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about User:EyeSerene. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Milhist Coordinator elections | ||
I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917. |
Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. – Joe N 01:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the information I have removed the image from my Signature. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 12:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you helped me half a year ago with some Administrative irregularities on the Computer graphics article, see here.
Now a noticed a similarity with the Henri Fayol and the Administrative theory article. Some beginner moved the Henri Fayol article, and I guess nobody was paying attention. If you can recreate the Henri Fayol article in it's 3 march state, I will wikify the article some more and add some more biographical details. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey! I'm thinking of making some kind of airborne warfare Barnstar; maybe prior to seeing if anyone wants to set up an airborne warfare taskforce. But mainly because I'm the only person really doing AW articles and I wouldn't mind saying thanks to some people who've helped me. I'm thinking of a parachute as the symbol, maybe...I'm running short of any other ideas for an airborne warfare logo. Anyway, any help you can give would be widely appreciated! Skinny87 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The Content Creativity Barnstar | ||
To EyeSerene, for making a brilliant barnstar! Skinny87 (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |
I have stated my opinion and my respons at the deletion discussion. But, like I said over there, I have a compromise proposol if you wish to discuss it so we can not delete the article but still make it as not to be too much of a memorial. My proposal is to delete the names of all soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan and just leave the paragraph which states the 608 number of killed in those countries with icasualties.org as it's source. But, we leave the names of the 28 soldiers who died in other countries while supporting combat operations in Afghanistan, along with their sources, so that the deaths of those 28 can be confirmed and linked to the war. Is this OK?BobaFett85 (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Icasualties.org is more reliable because it lists all of the names given by the DoD itself, obviously the DoD has stated a lesser number than the number of the names they have given. Also icasualties.org is a realy notable site since it is used when giving numbers of war dead by all of the major news outlets, including AP, BBC and others. There is no original research here. First of, 636 names have been listed in the article with solid references, thus 636 died. As to explain the source. Icasualties.org, a highly notable source, has listed the names of 608 soldiers to have died in Afghanistan or as a result of wounds received in Afghanistan. Another 24 soldiers were listed to have died in other Arabian countries, while supporting operations in Afghanistan. Also, another four servicemen have been found to be missing from icasualties.org's list, but were confirmed by DoD to be victims of operation Enduring freedom, their deaths are also listed with references. Thus the final number is 636. No original research here involved. Again, all of the names given by icasualties were given by DoD.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The material was already in Coalition casualties in Afghanistan for years, I just moved it to the new article. So why would it be cause for my block if I only reverted it to what it was for years? It was there for years before this situation and it was edited by dozens of users who didn't have a problem with it like you and Nick. In any case we will see the result of the current discussion. And I think Nick should cool down a bit since he threatened that other user with blocking for some kind of a personal attack on you. As far as I see he didn't attack you personaly at all, he just asked you a question.BobaFett85 (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your last message. I can only say one thing... Thanks, realy. As for that other thing, I think in that case you should also notify that anonymous user that constantly changes his IP over at Coalition casualties in Afghanistan not to reinsert all of that material into the article because that's just what he did today. I reverted him. You should tell him on the discussion page. Could you at least tell me you agree on the number with me? 636? icasualties.org has listed 608 to have died eather in Afghanistan, Pak., Uzbek. or military hospitals from wounds received in Afghanistan. It also lists another 24 to have died in other Arabian countries in support of the war. I also provided references for four more who are not listed on icasualties.org. Icasualtie.org's list at least confirms that the DoD's is incorrect, at the very least that they don't match up, even though all of icasualties.org's names were confirmed by DoD itself.BobaFett85 (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Listen, I was thinking, and I think I have found a solution for the dilema. Currently it is still unclear what the result of the nomination will be, five have opposed deletion, five have confirmed deletion and one said to withdraw the nomination until the dispute is resolved. Thus we have a standof as some would say. So I think I have found a solution satisfactory for both sides. The main problem here is the Memorial rule. I will tell you now, in principle I support that rule, I am against lists of soldiers killed in wars. But I clearly made my point clear why I wanted the list, to shorten that previous article and to find a definite number of soldiers killed. So my solution is the following - We delete all of the names, all of them, but we will make up a new list, a chronological list of attacks on US forces, a chronological list of deaths of US soldiers in the war. But we will not put the names of the soldiers, just the numbers of how many died in specific incidents. A kind of list like those others: List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq, List of insurgent fatality reports in Afghanistan, List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports, List of Afghan security forces fatality reports, Timeline of Somali war (which in essence only lists deaths of people in the war by date). If it would be in that form then the article would not be a memorial. What do you say, would that be alright?BobaFett85 (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply to your comment over at the discussion page on the table. What you said is an excelent idea, I was thinking to do something about that, so the article wouldn't look like preferences are given towards one specific number. But the problem is how do we know which soldiers the DoD left out of their number. As stated according to icasualties.org's methodology all of the names that are on their list were confirmed by DoD as OEF casualties, but obviously the DoD has gotten it's math wrong by seven. It would be excess if we made to separate tables. Damn, it would be great if the DoD had an online list of fatalities so then we would know which were left out. What do you think?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to discuss with you over at the discussion page of Coalition casualties in Afghanistan Talk:Coalition casualties in Afghanistan what to do with the list of specific incidents of deaths, an anonymous user is constantly reinserting the list which contains the names of US, British, Canadian and other soldiers killed in the war. I have been constantly removing the list but he keeps reinserting it. What do you think we should to. I have again removed most of the list, but this time not all of it. I removed the names of Canadian, British and Australian soldiers killed since they all already have their own articles about the casualtis they have sustained and those articles even list them by names and also removed the names of US soldiers because like we concluded at the discussion at that other article the list would be too long. I left the names and incidents of all Europian soldiers deaths in the war in the list so to not delete it totaly and changed the name of the section to List of Europian soldiers deaths since a user put in the template of the Afghan war links to articles on US, British, Canadian and other deaths, the other deaths link links to this exact list. So what do you think?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Coalition casualties in in Afghanistan was changed and modified by BobaFett85, and part of the data recovered to American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan, in the original there was info about age & hometown of the soldiers and links to relevant stories about them. Now in the new one, there is only place for small info, and even that is put on for deletion, don't you have any respect at all for your troops ?
Perelada (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It was't an "attack" on you, only a question ... (and sorry about my english, but my mother tongue is flemish) Perelada (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but somehow I find it useful to add their age of date of birth ... so I don't know why that was left out ? Perelada (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't not have any opinion about peoples' motives as you say. I think it is unfair that I get threatened with another block, when I am just trying to discuss things. Is this way it is always going to be - if someone disagrees, they have to be kept quiet? I genuinely think these articles I am discussing are heavily biased. The word British keeps changing over time. I did not realize until I investigated that only one of the five commanders of the Battle of Britain was English. Do you not think that it significant? It is called a "Decisive British victory", and yet three of the five commanders are not British. Wallie (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I seem to have drawn a crowd of support! | |
I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | |
A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921. |
Sorry if you took offense at my comments on the coordinators page… I love puns and was trying to continue your string… — Bellhalla (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Civility Award | ||
Please accept this barnstar in recognition of your impressive record of civility and clear explanations. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC) |
Cool, sorry for making the mistake, I'm still new to this game but am trying to be good. Thanks :) Fol de rol troll (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear EyeSerene,
Thank you for your message to me.
I am was who created the article AnyLogic, and as you may imagine I am very sad about its possible deletion. You said that I am welcome to to address your concerns about the article, I'd love to edit it.
I have posted some comments about notability of the software on the . I use this software for a few years, know that it is a key-player in the simulation industry. Could you please help by telling me what materials should I add to prove the notability.
The original purpose of this article is to let people know about the software, and describe its application areas and multi-method modeling approach. Unfortunately, I did not finished to write it (it is still marked as a stub) and other people have done some 'advertising' changes. I know that Wikipedia is not an AD dashboard. I will modify the article, remove all marketing messages written by others. AnyLogic is distributed through distributors network world-wide, the most probably some of them have tried to add marketing messages into the articles. As I sad I will modify the article and I will try keep it non-marketing in future.
Regarding spam attempts - I do not like spam on any account, but I am not sure how I can prevent them. Any ideas?
Thank you very much for you time to read this, Sergey Suslov (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear EyeSerene,
I found several good reviews of AnyLogic in Russian language. And even there is a book "Karpov, Yu (2006) Simulation of systems. Introduction in modeling with AnyLogic 5 – SPb.: BHV Petersburg ISBN 5-94157-148-8. The book is in Russian language and it is used in studying AnyLogic. Does it help to prove the notability? May I use Russian materials as a references for English Wikipedia?
Thank you, Sergey Suslov (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for quick reply. I have added some references on the scientific papers that proves most of the things written in the text. I've tried to add an article from reliable journals on each problem domain where users apply AnyLogic. I am going to proceed with writing this article, describe development environment, language notation (differences with UML) etc. What is your opinion - is current editing enough to remove 'delete' template?
Another question: what is the time limit for editing - when my page will be deleted, if the notability is not proved? I hope I have proved it by somehow, but understand that there may be different opinions.
Sorry to bother you with question, but I am still a beginner in Wikipedia, but I am studding :) Sergey Suslov (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have finished what the article would look like if I would edit it right now. Tell me what you think? This is without the list of hostile incidents incured by the US forces. This has been agreed to in principle by EnigmaMcmxc and Lawrencama and done per discussion with them. We would state both the icasualties number and the DoD number, both of them, we wouldn't leave out any of them. Yes the official lesser number reported by DoD is the official one, but most medial outlets, CNN, BBC, AP and others are reporting the higher number given by icasualties and most regard icasualties's number more notable than DoD's. But I have laid it out and now several editors have agreed to present both numbers and per Lawrencama's proposols to point out how we came to icasualties's number. I have now come to the point that I am to tired to discuss this any more and if you still want it like that I would also go the extra mile and forget the list of incidents and not iclude it in the article. We would only maybe list several notable incidents of large numbers of fatalities from large battles like operation Red Wing, opeartion Anaconda or battle of Wanat. Send me a reply please.
As of March 27 2009, 635 U.S. servicemen have been killed in the War in Afghanistan. Of this number, 451 have died in hostile action and 184 in non-hostile incidents. Included in these numbers are four CIA operatives that were killed in Afghanistan, two in an ambush, one in a prison uprising in November 2001, and one in an accident. One other CIA operative was killed in a vehicle accident in Kazakhstan. A civilian DoD employee was also killed in action while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.[1]
Of the American deaths, 608* have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, while 27 died in: Kuwait, Bahrain, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, the Arabian sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, while supporting operations in Afghanistan.[2][3][4][5][6]
As of March 17, 2009, 2,737 American soldiers have been wounded in action in Afghanistan, with 1,770 not returning to duty.[7]
Note: The number 608 is based on the list of names provided by icasualties.org. It should be noted this number is by seven higher than the DoD's officialy stated number of deaths which says 601, even though all of the names listed at icasualties.org were confirmed by the DoD.
Country of death | Number of hostile deaths |
Number of non-hostile deaths |
Total number of deaths |
---|---|---|---|
Afghanistan | 435[8] | 141[9] | 576[10] |
Pakistan | 3[11][12] | 9[13] | 12[14] |
United States (died of wounds received in Afghanistan) |
8[15] | 3[16] | 11[17] |
Kuwait | 2[18][19] | 8[20] | 10[21] |
Germany (died of wounds received in Afghanistan) |
3[22] | 4[23] | 7[24] |
Arabian Sea | None | 3[25] | 3 |
Qatar | None | 3[26] | 3 |
Persian Gulf | None | 2[27][28] | 2 |
United Arab Emirates | None | 2[29] | 2 |
United States (died of wounds received in the Persian Gulf) |
None | 1[30] | 1 |
United States (died while on leave from the theater of opearations) |
None | 1[31] | 1 |
Bahrain | None | 1[32] | 1 |
Indian Ocean | None | 1[33] | 1 |
Khazakhstan | None | 1[34] | 1 |
Red Sea | None | 1[35] | 1 |
Saudi Arabia | None | 1[36] | 1 |
Turkey (died of wounds received in Afghanistan) |
None | 1[37] | 1 |
Uzbekistan | None | 1[38] | 1 |
TOTAL | 451 | 184 | 635 |
Note: These numbers were provided by icasualties.org. To confirm the numbers are correct go to and use the filter to show the exact number of deaths per country of death. Following the use of the filter in the bottom left corner is the number of names listed per country of death.
It should also be noted that four deaths have been included in this table that are not on icasualties.org's list but were confirmed to be related to the war in Afghanistan. Those were the deaths of: the Civilian DoD employee, a CIA operative in Khazakhstan, a sailor lost in the Indian ocean and a soldier who was on leave from her unit in the United States.
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.