User talk:USMCMIDN

Welcome!

Hello, USMCMIDN, 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Casualty counts
Greetings USMCMIDN. I assume you're USMC affiliated in some fashion. Thank you for your service. Thank you also for contributing the updated casualty counts. Would you kindly please not remove references (as per your last edit)? Years later people may be able to check the casualty claims by referring to the news articles, and be able to make the additions themselves - thus being able to research it right to the source. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This diff. You removed two references and added the two separate numbers together. Next time, please just leave the references in. What does MIDN mean? V/r Buckshot06 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're a Midshipman? Great stuff. I wish I could have joined the services. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are you stationed at the moment? I really am fascinated with the USMC. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the sources and add the data. Please - one thing - add talkpage comments at the bottom. At the top will confuse everyone. Semper Fi.. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What the source actually says is 'about a quarter of the estimated 400 Talib' have been killed. In good conscience, I would really have to add something like 'Estimated 100.' We could not put in 100 because that's an estimated loss from an estimated total. You know what they say about bullshit in, bullshit out. Remember the awful business with body count inflation in Vietnam. Body count are a very crude indicator. We've got to win the hearts and minds of the people if the state is to be reestablished and solidified. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What are they teaching you guys about COIN? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I applaud the intention but actually I have to slightly disagree. Have you seen the recent Center for a New American Security paper which reports the ISAF G-2 is saying that U.S. forces are not building enough of a knowledge of all the myriad of power players, clan and otherwise? I'd also direct you to Antonio Giustozzi's RUSI journal article in December 2009 ('The ANA: Unwarranted Hope') which worries that there are serious weaknesses in the ANA. Basically the ANA couldn't be supported by Afghanistan's budget at a strength of 75,000. How are we ever going to hand it off to Afghan Ministry of Finance financing at a strength of 240,000? There seem to be a number of real weak points in our strategy. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Taliban casualties
Sir, the problem we having right now for counting Taliban death is that the government (either Afghan or ISAF) stopped giving the exact number of Taliban casualty since early monday. Instead, they just say "there were several Taliban killed and captured" type comment. Contributors are doing their best to figure out the correct number. By the way, thank you for the source.Kadrun (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's your decision to ignore official (both British and American) statement. Kadrun (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2-13-2010 US Turbet, Jacob H. Corporal 21 Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire Helmand Marja (near) U.S. Marine Michigan Canton 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force Camp Lejeune, NC
 * 2-13-2010 UK Greenhalgh, Dave Lance Sergean 25 Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Helmand Nad 'Ali district British Army England Ilkeston, Derbyshire 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards Not yet reported
 * 2-15-2010 US Estopinal, Jason H. Private 1st Class 21 Hostile - hostile fire Helmand Marja U.S. Marine Georgia Dallas 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Forc Camp Lejeune, NC
 * 2-16-2010 US Pier, Noah M. Lance Corporal 25 Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Helmand Helmand province U.S. Marine North Carolina Charlotte 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii
 * 2-17-2010 US Currier, Eric D. Private 1st Class 21 Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire Helmand Helmand U.S. Marine New Hampshire Londonderry 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force Camp Lejeune, NC
 * 2-18-2010 US Johnson, Larry M. Not yet reported 19 Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire Helmand province Marjah U.S. Marine Pennsylvania Scranton 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force Not yet reported
 * 2-18-2010 US Coutu, Kyle J. Private 1st Class 20 Hostile - hostile fire Helmand Marjah U.S. Marine Rhode Island Providence 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force Camp Lejeune, NC
 * 2-18-2010 US McQueary, Jeremy R. Sergeant 27 Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire Helmand Marjah U.S. Marine Indiana Columbus 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force Camp Lejeune, NC
 * 2-18-2010 US Dunn, Kielin T. Lance Corporal 19 Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire Helmand Marjah U.S. Marine Not Yet Reported Not Yet Reported 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force Camp Lejeune, NC
 * 2-18-2010 UK Walker, David "Davey" Lance Sergeant 36 Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire Helmand Nad-e-Ali (central Helmand Province) British Army Scotland Glasgow 1st Battalion Scots Guards (1 Grenadier Guards Battle Group) Not Yet Reported
 * 2-18-2010 UK NAME NOT RELEASED YET Not Yet Reported 0 Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire Helmand Nad 'Ali (central Helmand province) British Army Not Yet Reported Not Yet Reported 1st Battalion Scots Guards (1 Grenadier Guards Battle Group) Not Yet Reported

3 brits and 8 americans in this list already, and 2 more KIA to come that are not yet reported. All of them are confirmed by officials that their death are related to the operation.

Here, I just proved that yours is wrong.

Here it comes another source for 13 ISAF deaths. http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3883784

Sir, I took your word and I'm confident that the number of death of Taliban is 120 or above. I already put 120+ killed for their factual casualty. However, I'm not surprised even there's a source says 200+ killed. I strongly belive that the coalition has killed more than 200~300 at least.

What we need to do is to find the damn source to put good numbers for Taliban scums :) Kadrun (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Read "Bugles and Tigers" if you do you will understand the posting
--Jackehammond (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Casualties in Operation Mustarek
You talk on this page that 120 taliban militants killed.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kadrun#Overall_casualties_in_Operation_Mustarek.28From_starting_to_present.29

That taliban casualties is intelliance estimated, not confermed.According to NATO statement releaseed yesterday in which NATO said that 40-45 taliban militants killed in Operation mustarek.Anyways 21 civilians killed in Operation Mustarek, ISAF(NATO) said.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100222/wl_nm/us_afghanistan

14 NATO(Coalition) soldiers killed in Operation Mustarek.http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/22-Feb-2010/Four-Nato-soldiers-killed-in-Afghanistan116.71.163.108 (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats why it says estimated in the box. (USMCMIDN (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC))


 * I have one advice for you.Please don,t mind.Use this ":" sign before you starting any reply.Please don,t mind.You can see that sign in my reply. 119.152.91.115 (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

10 Taliban killed 22 February?????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rebel_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

You add that 10 taliban killed on 22 February.And source is this news.


 * http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100222/BREAKING/100222004/NATO+says+27+civilians+killed+in+Afghanistan+air+strike+

I doesn't find any taliban casualty in that news source.119.152.91.115 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

very bottom of the article it says 14 were killed I fixed it in the article I put it in too. It literally is the last sentence of the article (USMCMIDN (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

Mexican Drug War
The link to the reference is now fixed. Editing in Wikipedia goes way beyond deleting entries; in the future, please do not delete neither the information nor the source, just add the  "broken link" tag, as explained here: WP:DEADLINK:
 * Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source isn't working any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line.
 * Do not delete a URL solely because the URL isn't working any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available.

Thank you, and relax. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Now the link works was that so hard to do in the long run? (USMCMIDN (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Dude, your own rules do not apply. Please do the tutorial and when you are competent, then we'll talk. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want repetitive comments on your mistakes then stop doing what you are told is wrong. Buckshot06 told you from the begining to not delete data under that pretext. I asked you to do the same, and in addition, I quoted the relevant rule and spoon-fed it to you. You either can't understand it or don't give a damn. So for the 4th time: In the future, please do not delete neither the information nor the source, just add the "broken link" tag, as explained here: WP:DEADLINK:
 * Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source isn't working any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line.
 * Do not delete a URL solely because the URL isn't working any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available.

Have a nice life. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fallujah
You said Sources provided said no actual number of casualties, this means you read only the icasualties source and not the other two ones. Here are the other two. Your source only states the number of fatalities during the heaviest of the fighting between November 8 and November 16, however the operation and the battle continued until December 23, two sources have been provided on this date in the article check here, during that additional fighting up to December 23 the number of dead reached 95. Just because they said on November 16 the majority of the fighting was over doesn't mean it realy was (having a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED flashback). Major street fighting ended by November 16, but sporadic fighting in the city lasted for another month and the last pockets of resistance were destroyed by December 23. A source has been provided where a US Marine involved in the fighting states that by December 17, insurgents were STILL putting up resistance in the city center...that doesn't sound to me like the battle is over. Your statement that icasualties is unreliable is off-base compleatly since AP, BBC, CNN and dozens of others have cited their numbers in reports about the Iraq and Afghan wars, thus they are reliable. Also, besides the icasualties source two more above mentioned sources were provided that backed up the 90 or so deaths claim, if you read the refs you would have confirmed this. You are the only one who is pushing this point of view, me, Nirvana77, Looper5920 and others agree on this figure. You are removing valid sources and going against the opinion of the majority of editors on this issue. This is contra-productive. If you wish to argue your opinion then discuss it on the talk page but don't always revert Nirvan, Looper or me when we reintroduce the number which has been in the box for six years now. If you lay out valid statements than the position might be reconsidered. To try and find a compromise solution for now I will revert back to our edit however I will also insert into the figure 95 that of those 51 died during that eight day period in November with your source. Cheers!MikeyTMNT (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In a further move to compromise with you I will remove the icasualties source since it lists the names of those killed in Fallujah but doesn't state the real number, however the other two sources provided state the number of dead in operation Phantom Phury as 92 killed in action. Please read those two sources. The icasualties source was there so to confirm the three non-hostile deaths during the operation which made for 95 dead.MikeyTMNT (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been confirmed by Wikipedia that 27, not 39, US servicemen died during the first battle for Fallujah, your 39 source by April 14 corresponds to all of the official lists of military personel who died in the whole of Al Anbar province by that date, not just Fallujah. Please check the discussion page of the article here and here. There was a big edit war over this but in the end an official Wikipedia arbitter concluded that 27 servicemen died during the battle. Also the 600 figure of insurgents killed is incorrect, most sources state that 600 Iraqis all in all died during the battle, that includes civilians, several sources have stated 184 of them were insurgents and this has been sourced in the article. The 27 figure has been discussed over and over again over the years but it has ultimately been decided to go with that number. Please don't change it just like that and go against the concensus of the Wikipedia community, if you want to edit on Wiipedia you should stick to a few ground rules, I think one other editor warned you of this already. Hope you still continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Cheers!MikeyTMNT (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)