Hardtofindaname 09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Warcraft: Dragons of Outland, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.wowwiki.com/Dragons_of_Outland_Trilogy. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your '4th Bde' edit. Armies are not necessarily logical, and there is no direct evidence to suggest this brigade is designated '4th,' and some to suggest it isn't. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Americans demolished the base, dubbed Combat Outpost Keating, just days after an all-day fight last Saturday in which eight American soldiers were killed and 24 wounded. U.S. military officials estimate that as many as 100 of the attackers were also killed in the battle, which was the bloodiest in Afghanistan in the past year.

Keating was destroyed so it could not be used by insurgents.1

Where do you see in either of the refs that the base was destroyed in the attack? Bsimmons666 (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was wrong, it is COP Keating. Bsimmons666 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. I didn't think 'burned' necessarily meant 'completely destroyed', but this account backs up your understanding of it. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your last post to AN/I was 1122 words long. Please try to limit yourself to brief and to the point entries on noticeboards. People are much more likely to read it then and you'll be much more effective at getting your point across. henrik•talk 23:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UrukHaiLoR. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Response_to_Cs32en.27s_comments.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

ALI ^{nom nom} 02:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wehwalt posted the idea in the first place. I just came along, agreed with them and notified both of you. I like the solution you worked out, and I'm sure User:Cs32en will agree. One little thing, though: when you write your "most people reported this, but some reported this" statement, I think you should tell the reader which news sources reported which things, if only to avoid WP:Weasel words. Does that sound good? ALI ^{nom nom} 17:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait. Since Cs32en is blocked, he asked me to post something to the ANI board. I haven't read it yet, but I will. You should probably check it out. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Top Gun for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs32en (talk • contribs)
(Note: Normally I believe there would be an automated notice, but the bot is down, so some things arent working properly. I saw this case being created I had the SPI main page on my watchlist after filing an SPI case myself an hour ago. Other than that, I have no connection to this case or either of the parties involved. ) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Block evasion. Based on your contributions I believe that you are User:Top Gun. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here)) below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their contributions, I believe that UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs) is another sock of User:Top Gun for the following reasons:

• The similarities in editing patterns. UrukHaiLoR has edited the same sorts of articles as Top Gun's socks have, and in particular contributing to articles covering comics and adding casualties to articles covering casualty reports in ongoing wars (for instance United States Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan, and List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan, both of which were created by Top Gun socks).
  • It is important to note that that UrukHaiLoR's first edit in a casualty report article showed an understanding of the figures which a new editor could not be expected to have: their first edit to the Coalition casualties in Afghanistan article UrukHaiLoR's edit summary read "Suicides and natural deaths have been included on this list,you should discuss this first before making such changes,discuss why they need to be removed,as far as I see it the list includes all deaths". While there was a note about the figures excluding suicides in the article at the time, there was nothing about natural deaths in the article.
  • UrukHaiLoR has also continued the standard practice of Top Gun socks of adding up the various casualty reports to produce OR figures of the number of total casualties with no supporting citation (as a couple of examples, see [1], [2])
  • UrukHaiLoR has also followed the Top Gun pattern or relying heavily on the iCasualties website to provide regular updates of US and NATO casualties. While this may be a reliable source (though I am concerned that its figures often differ from official numbers), other sources for casualties exist (eg, the official statistics on the various militaries websites, figures quoted in news reports, etc) but these have not been used. Their preference for iCasualties over US Department of Defense figures and detailed knowledge of how figures on the iCasualties website have changed over time is demonstrated by this talk page post (which also suggests a willingness to disregard published casualty figures on the grounds that they're slightly wrong; another Top Gun habbit).
• In particular, UrukHaiLoR recently started the Danish Defence casualties in Afghanistan. The use of a detailed table to present information on fatalities is consistent with the initial version of United States Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan (see this version in particular before it was dramatically cut back) and the deleted article List of Central Intelligence Agency officers killed in the line of duty, both of which were created by Top Gun socks. The inclusion of fatalities in this list which are not included in the official Danish government lists is also consistent with Top Gun's editing pattern in creating such articles (one of the various socks once explained their motivation in creating such articles as to demonstrate that the official list of casualties was incomplete; this appears to be another attempt to do this).
• The sheer volume of daily edits made by UrukHaiLoR is also consistent with the behavior of other Top Gun socks, all of which have also made significant numbers of edits almost every day they were active.

In summary, I have blocked this account due to the similarity between this editor's edit pattern and the patterns of other Top Gun socks (all of which also had a similar focus on casualty reports and comics). Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to update this article but i cant because edit button is removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan So please add these in the article.And my request is please add the edit button in the article.

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

• January 10, 2010 - An Afghan soldier killed alongwith a US soldier and a British journalist in an explosion in southern Afghanistan.^[1]

• January 12, 2010 - An Afghan policeman has been killed and two others wounded in a suicide attack at a police station in south-central Afghanistan.^[2]

• January 13, 2010 - Various Taliban attacks in the country killed five policemen and 4 Afghan soldier.^[3]

Afghan private security guard losses

• On January 7, 2010, seven PMC's including the commander of Afghan security guards killed by a suice bomb attack in Gardez, the capital of Paktia province.^[4]

 Done Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add below information starting in the article.

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

In 2010, 20 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.^[5]

• January 17, 2010 - Several taliban attacks in country killed 2 Afghan soldiers, 5 policemen and an Afghan district chief.^[6]

Afghan private security guard losses

• January 13, 2010 - An Afghan PMC killed by a gunfire during a protest.^[7]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

• January 17, 2010 - Several taliban attacks in country killed 2 Afghan soldiers, 5 policemen and an Afghan district chief.^[8]

Afghan private security guard losses

• January 13, 2010 - An Afghan PMC killed by a gunfire during a protest.^[9]<ref>Extra refrence:The UN report also highlighted the "cultural insensitivity" of some foreign troops. The report's release comes a day after nine people were reported killed in a protest in southern Helmand province's Garmsir district.

Violence erupted on Tuesday over rumours that NATO-led forces had defiled a copy of the Muslim holy book the Koran during a military operation. "Eight protesters were killed when the protesters attacked national security officials in Garmsir," deputy provincial police chief Kamaluddin Khan told AFP. http://www.samaa.tv/News16129-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.135.187 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]