User talk:Sherurcij

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks

Questions/Comments

Amusing people who complain about me

I'm a DYK whore!

[edit] Fallujah casualties

OK buddy listen I added those 11 Marines you missed but listen now I think that we should remove 20 killed from the number of Marines killed and revise the number to 33 killed because 20 of those killed and I put there names in the discussion page were killed in the battles of Ramadi and Husaybah, they were from the 2/4 Marines and 3/7 Marines, those units did not participate in the battle for Fallujah as you will see also on the list of participating units. They participated in the Battle of Ramadi 2004 and Battle of Husaybah, search for those two battles on Wikipedia and you will see that those two battles have been made in to seperate articles and they include those 20 dead. So we should include the killed only in Fallujah.

[edit] Anonymous grumpiness

I'm not new here. I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Don't talk to me again.User:24.94.122.112

My "talking to you" consisted of saying "Welcome to Wikipedia", and generally people who have only IP addresses showing up are safely assumed to be new since they don't have an account. But I apologize, I see now that your edits stretch all the way back to January, and today is already February. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Goodness! It looks like Sherurcij made the mistake of saying hi to Mr. Grumpy. Don't let it get you down, Sherurcij. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I like what you've done with the Charles Whitman page

You given it the ole "Ernest Hemingway treatment", i.e. gone through it and reduced the number of unnecessary words without compromising any detail. Good job. I'm going to work soon on some of the incomplete sections such as what happened between the time he left the Marines and the time he started seeing Dr. Heatley. Also, I think more detail on the abusive father may shed some light on why the tragedy happened. --Hokeman 05:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I grew up in Lake Worth, so I'll see what I can find as far as original photo's of his early life go. He never attended Lake Worth public schools - he always went to parochial schools. Plus he's been dead for almost 40 years - so this may be a challenge.--Hokeman 05:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • I also read the article on Bath Michigan yesterday. It was fascinating. I had never heard of the incident before. Kind of blows the theory out of the water that Charlie was America's "first" terrorist.--Hokeman 16:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion

Hi, what happened is that there's a legal issue surrounding the image, and it will be restored once its legal status is clarified. If you need more information, please contact Amgine, as that user is who asked me to intervene. Thanks. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sherurcij!

Yes, I work on the Communications Committee for Wikimedia Foundation and help to handle incoming queries to the Foundation. We recieved a copyright query regarding the image, and so it has been temporarily removed from the site until the legal team has the opportunity to examine the query. The image is stored off the wiki servers at the moment, pending the review. - Amgine 07:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, I will pass the link on to the WMF legal team. Just for your information, in my experience it is not fair use to use an image in the same manner as the copyright holder is using the image. In other words, it is not fair use for a news source to copy and use a news image from another news source. In this case, it is likely not fair use for Wikipedia to use a copyrighted image to illustrate an historical article when that image is used to illustrate an historical article by the copyright holder. This fails the non-competitive test of the fair use defense. - Amgine 07:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you mistook my example. To clarify: Wikinews may not use any image from a news source, because doing so would fail the non-competitive test of the Fair Use defense (and it is a defense - not a right.) Also, the AHC archive clearly states it is copyrighted, thus images there are not "freely available" on the internet. However, and luckily for both you and I, this issue is not going to be decided by either of us. The query will be examined by the legal team who will act in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole. - Amgine 08:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. The inquiry is an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation, and these are considered confidential by the privacy policy. You're as informed about the situation as I can reasonably do so, and I will keep you abreast of what I hear about the case. Of course you are also informed exactly as to why the image was removed, that it was removed temporarily, and thus it would be an act of bad faith to reupload deleted content in, as you say, a petty manner. - Amgine 17:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To keep you updated, with the legal team having reviewed the situation, the problem with this image is not so much copyright and fair use (although from observing your exchange with Amgine, I think the fair use analysis was a bit too narrowly oriented). Anyway, you asked what differentiates the photo in question from the others in the Charles Whitman article. Among other things, this - it shows a living person who apparently objects to its publication there. The issue therefore is more one of privacy and the right of publicity, a question separate from copyright and to which fair use does not apply. --Michael Snow 05:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue of publishing a photograph of a person, particularly in an article not directly about that person, goes somewhat beyond the question of whether it's justifiable simply to have an article about a person who objects to it. The age of the picture is, quite frankly, irrelevant, as is the fact that the picture is held in an archive. Neither of those addresses the problem of lack of consent. I don't think the fact that the archive has put the picture on a relatively obscure website, likely without seeking permission from the subject, is a good argument either by itself. If they aren't using appropriate practices, it wouldn't justify our doing the same.

You say that the image has been published in newspapers, however, which could make the situation appear differently. Very well, then, can you tell me what newspaper(s) published the image, when it was published, and if possible who the photographer was? This is information that should accompany the picture in any case in order to properly claim fair use, as you apparently wish to do given that you obviously don't own the copyright to the image yourself. --Michael Snow 18:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Elaine of Astolat

Thanks! I thought with a little time and attention, along with the help of this source, the article could look much better. Nice work on the gallery btw! :D Stoa 21:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helmut Wirnsberger and Josef Allerberger

I announced your new stubs at Portal:Germany/New article announcements#New stubs. If you create more Germany-related content, please add it to our announcement page. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 22:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why you removed the reference to the Gewehr 43? If you read his book it clearly points out that Josef Allerberger chose this weapon for this particular mission.

[edit] Vladimir Khodov

First, apologies (I now realize, after reading some user pages and many more comment pages, that my first comment in Wikipedia may have sounded a bit unfriendly) and thanks for the revert on Gabisov(a). I have since rewitten that sentence.

Now, because someone pointed out that there were no external sources, I put mine in the article proper. That is what caused me to re-read these web pages. I know that the first link http://www.hrvc.net/news2004/23-10-04.html actually says that Vladimir stayed on in Berdyansk, but the second one (rian.ru) caught my eye: one lady there said he went to that precise school number one. That would include the school year 1990-1991, by the way - ominous time. We could forget about this, if the same lady did not say there that his real name is not Khodov, but Sameshkin. Eh, how would she have known he did not have his stepfather's name then, if she had not known the boy?

I also noticed that the first link is actually based on Prima Newsagency, which means we have to be very careful - I have read comments by Russian contributors who claim this agency does bring news, but is often unprofessional in its comments and background information.

Unfortunately, the rian.ru link does not open today. Problems on the server? If access does improve, I think we should sincerely consider changing the story, and acknowledge that Khodov left the Ukraine for the Kaukasus earlier than the present state of the article , possibly even with his mother (or possibly not mentioning this) and may have been a pupil at the school. The article may need some re-writing now anyway. Agreed? --pgp 11:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I found two (possibly three) more afghan training camps

I found two (possibly three) more afghan training camps. I added two to the trainingCamp template. Please let me know if I did that the right way. One of the new detainees alleged to have been trained at them was also said to have retreated from the Omar Sief Centre -- without any explanation of what that might be.

I don't know if you have charities accused of ties to terrorism on your watchlist. Last week someone renamed it charities with ties to terrorism. -- Geo Swan 18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parliament Hill

Good edit -- good picture, and how could the article have failed to mention the cats? Jkelly 22:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

Thank you for adding the appropriate copyright to the newspaper scans--I wasn't sure which one to use or even how to find the code--someone just gave me the link to the section but you tagged it before me, so thank you. EZZIE 07:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LIP SLATED FOR DELETION

One of the trigger happy administrators have red flagged my article about The Long Island Project for deletion. I would ask everyone to go to the page and urge them not to. The subject matter of the film itself is of public interest (dealing with the secession of a mass of land as its own state.) I would ask the entire wikipedia world to vote in its favor. Thank you kindly. EZZIE 17:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in helping you whore your student film, sorry Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

[edit] Images moved to Commons

Well, I keep running into your great photography, and it seems a shame to restrict it to en:. Jkelly 20:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Accountability

Thanks for noting this page had NPOV issues and also needed improvement. I've noted on the talk page a long source that I don't have time at work to make use of. GRBerry 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now made use of that reference. Can you comment on the talk page about how the article is shaping up? I, and the other contributor to date, are new editors. GRBerry 01:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goebbels children, Rochus Misch

Thank you for your comment, and a BIG thank you for all your added information about the Goebbels Children! I'm an inexperienced Wikipedia-user, so I hope I'm responding to your message in the appropriate place :P

Since you seem to be both involved and experienced, I'd like to point out one thing that's been troubling me for a while.... In the "bunker template" at the bottom of the Goebbels Children page, for example, it states that the date of Rochus Misch's departure from the bunker is "uncertain", while on his page it says "Following the suicides of Hitler, on April 30, 1945, and Joseph Goebbels on May 1, 1945, Misch and mechanic Johannes Hentschel, two of the last people remaining in the bunker, exchanged letters to their wives if anything were to happen to them. Misch was captured after fleeing the bunker on May 2nd, only hours before the Red Army seized it". There is no source on this, so how does one know which one that is correct and what to trust? Where does one get reliable information about seemingly unimportant details such as these? Should I move Misch from "uncertain" to May 1? --Ojan 22:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the ~'s, just forgot them :P Thanks for the link, I'll try to read it whenever I get time... I'll try to gather information about him from the article... Hopefully it'll state a more reliable date on when he left, as opposed to the May 1 on his page and May 2 on that blog.... --Ojan 22:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Strassmeir

Reading your userpage, I think you might be interested in Andreas Strassmeir, who doesn't have an article. According to this site: "At an April 1993 gun show in Tulsa, for example, [Timothy] McVeigh met Andreas Strassmeir, the grandson of a founder of the Nazi party and then the head of security for Elohim City, a 400-acre compound on the Arkansas-Oklahoma border founded by a white supremacist. (There is interesting, but inconclusive, evidence suggesting that Strassmeir might have been a federal undercover operative.)"

Just FYI.

[edit] Vladimir Khodov

Hi. You asked me to clean up certain things. I am doing so now, but am waiting to trace an article I read late last night. As I wrote in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vladimir_Khodov ("In hiding? or not really?") it contained new information about the relationship between his mother and adoptive father. It seems now that there was a row, the mother and the kids left Elkhotovo for Beslan for some time (but returned to Anatoly later) Solves two problems: why kids living in Elkhotovo go to a Beslan school 40 km away, and why the name Samoshkin was at least used for some time at that school.

I do have one problem now: you put a sentence about Anatoly dying or disappearing BEFORE the Boris abduction paragraph. Will this not suggest that he was not there anymore in July 2003? The point is that the letter from the 30 villagers at least suggests differently. The families made peace according to Ossetian custom, Vladimir swears that he cannot wait for his adoptive father to die.

I was thinking of including the calls made by his mother during the siege ("Siege") and the letter of the villagers (After the Attack). Agreed?

The problem with linking up Basaev's claim with VK going to the training camp is that the two sources claim he was already at the camp long before the burial. [This one] says he joined the camp at the end of 2002: В конце 2002 года Ходов куда-то пропал, -- сказал наш собеседник. -- Сейчас мы установили, что тогда он вместе с еще 30 боевиками прошел обучение на одной из баз террористов под названием «Талибан». Она располагалась неподалеку от села Галашки (At the end of 2002 he just landed somewhere - a Russian phrase meaning : we lost track of him - now we have established, said our interlocutor, that at that time together with 30 fighters he went trough training at one of the terrorist bases, called "Taliban". It was situated not far from the village of Galashki) It seems he was allowed out for the burial, but in company (see below).

I hate how the word "terrorist" is being avoided in this context, while we know Beslan was a Basaev action. But in this case the compromise is painfully obvious: "He went to the 'Taliban' training camp neear Galashki." Galashki may well be worth a Wikipedia article by now. There was a hostage taker living there, and I seem to remember it was the place where a British journalist got killed when accompanying Chechen fighters crossing from Georgia into Russia. --pgp 21:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I also found the Trud article which claims a temporary separation, or even state of divorce of the parents: [[1]]

There is more interesting info in this article:

1) Aleksandra was married before: Анатолий усыновил трехлетнего ребенка Александры от первого брака Владимира.

2) At School Number One Vladimir was horribly ambitious and looked down on the other kids of his age: Там у Владимира проявились болезненная амбициозность и презрительное отношение к ровесникам.

(other sources claim Boris was a hooligan: so he differed from the kids his age in the opposite way)

3) No info on the father after their return, but since other sources claim among other things that Anatoly often visited his son in jail and was convinced he was innocent, I think they again lived together.

4) Vladimir did not arrive at the funeral on his own, but in the company of two bearded friends, one of whom villagers later recognized amongh the dead Beslan hostage takers: Да не один, а в компании двух никому не знакомых бородачей - одного из них потом эльхотовцы опознали среди убитых в Беслане террористов.

5) After the Islamic funeral, VK went back to the village and pushed the tables with drinks around, referring to Islamic law, and threatened to shoot the people gathered there: Вернувшись в село, где начинались поминки, Ходов попытался перевернуть столы с выпивкой, ссылаясь на законы фундаментального ислама. И даже пригрозил расстрелять собравшихся.

6) The journalist asked the Militia minister of Northern Ossetia whether the freeing of VK proved that he had powerful protectors in the local police department (ROVD). "I do not exclude that possibility". Я не исключаю такой возможности”, - ответил мне Сослан Иванович.

7) Aleksandra already left Elkhotovo before the village council decide to banish her. According to rumours she went to live with someone she knew in Vladikavkaz: Ну а мать террористов еще до решения сельского схода уехала из Эльхотова. По слухам она перебралась к знакомым во Владикавказ. (Vladikavkaz is the capital of North Ossetia. I doubt very much that a village council has the right to banish someone from North Ossetia.)

About the letter of the 30 to Komsomolskaya Pravda - I have never before put a text in Wikisource. I suppose this should go into the Russian version? I do not find there any heading where it looks normal to put a letter to a newspaper.User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

1) no need to put in the guy he came with. I think the other one was the cleric, in fact. Perhaps the cleric came to fetch him, and the third one had to go along with him. But I agree, there is not much substantiation (about the third one also being a hostage taker) yet. In any case, it does not really matter for this article.

2) oops - I did not notice the minister's family name (!) was missing (I suppose that is what you mean). He is easy to google. He came up first: [[2]] Siko(y)ev therefore, Soslan Ivanovi(t)ch. The journalist who seems to know the guy very well (that is what the dropping of the family name means), is called Artur Tserekov, by the way. No otchestvo given.

3) it seems obvious that Vladimir's father was this first husband. By the way, I found somewhere Anatoly was a veteran. If that is the second world war (Hungary and Czechoslovakia are not usually called a war - Afghanistan was too late for him), that makes him at least 79 in 2004 and 54 in 1979. Alexandra was 15 years younger. So she was 40 when Boris was born. Perhaps his mother's first marriage lasted longer than we thought and Vladimir had a lot more family in Berdyansk? [The age would also explain a few things: older parents tend to spoil their children and the children when grown up are not very inclined to heed their parents' advice: they sound like relics of an older age or grandparents.]

4) about Basaev - I agree to differ. He called himself a terrorist. And he attacked a hospital, a plainly non-military target before any Russian "terroristic" action in Chechnya. I do not look for trouble, by the way.--pgp 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)--pgp 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:F-Stops.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:F-Stops.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 05:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hijacker' cleanups

Do you have an inbox ? Is this the most appropriate way to communicate with you ? I appreciate your point about using first name, not surname, and thank you for any and all help. I will strive to observe that. Using last name for me is a sign of respect over familiarity, but here I am working in a different culture and can adjust. Interested in joining WikiProject Terrorism.

My motivation in making these edits is simply to present what is factual. IMO what is theory should be labelled as such, and misinformation needs corrected if any of us will ever arrive at something resembling truth. I do not promote hate - I see terrorists as human, with motivations different than my own. Not sure I will understand them, but want to see their stories told accurately, let others make up their own minds when enough is known.

So I agree with you that we must know the details of the players and events to understand "our (recent and past) history." I derive details from the full spectrum, wherever the trail leads, recording verifiable data, cross-checked, no hearsay or opinion. Wikipedia can be a source of insight as to how and why current events unfold in ways which catch us off guard.

With an associated blog to help me keep track, I will also check associated wiki pages to see that details correspond. Again thanks for comments any time. JB

[edit] Arguello and Khaled

Hi, thanks for the note - the source is in the Dawson's Field Hijackings article, which I've been editing (I noticed your bounty). I can import it to the Khaled article if you liuke. (Also, are you getting the same weird font as I am when editing? Is it my computer?) Kaisershatner 18:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:HaniHanjourVisa1.jpg

Dr Zak 16:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with these is that the annotations my the National review are enough creative input to make the images copyrightable. Dr Zak 16:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nichola Goddard

You are very welcome. I didn't add much. Usually these kinds of articles (Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan) are not notable but I think in this case, the first female Canadian casualty since World War II, it is. Thanks for your work on it as well. I am sure more information will be available tomorrow in the press (for example the year she was born and personal information). --YUL89YYZ 21:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for getting so pissed off on the talk page, but I hate how articles like this proliferate...and now the both of you are just waiting for more information to be released, it's almost sickening. Like everything else on Wikipedia our comments are going to be spread all over the internet now, so if you'd like to argue over e-mail instead, I have "e-mail this user" turned on. Adam Bishop 03:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but that's not even the point...the article shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. I know I'll never get it deleted, but that is still the gist of my argument. But like I said, I would be more comfortable talkin about it over e-mail. Adam Bishop 04:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I thought you'd like to know...

I thought you'd like to know that, now that I have started articles on all the detainees whose transcripts from their Combatant Status Review Tribunals have been released -- making available authoritative, verifiable information about their background, and the allegations against them, someone has decided that all the articles should be nominated for deletion. They nominated Shaker Aamer, as a test case. -- Geo Swan 20:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{VietnamCorr}}

Thanks for creating this template, it's very useful. I've added a few more names and will start adding it to articles I have worked on or which are on my list of things to do. There are plenty more names to add though :-) Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for taking a look...

Thanks for taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaker Aamer.

Two more articles about Guantanamo detainees have been nominated for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasool Shahwali Zair Mohammed Mohammed
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abaidullah

Can I ask you to take a look at them? Thanks -- Geo Swan 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam's alleged woodchipper

I put an attention on it, because I know it needs work and I'm not sure how to proceed. Something about that title makes me worry. Let me know what you think. Cheers V. Joe 21:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] prt ii

Thanks for your kind attention. Here is my reply: Sheruji: My biggest problem with the article besides "Alleged" is just that it makes the title (and therefore the aritlce) seem a little hysterical. It reminds me of a Monty Python skit, truthfully. Although the article is balanced, paradoxically, as far as POV towards the existence of the shredder, sensationalism is also a form of POV imbalance. Personally I suspect something like that existed, but it was more the sort of sadism practiced by Uday Husseisn and that it didnt exist at Abu Gharib. AG, incidentally, bothers me, because it is clearly a historical prison as well as a political one, almost like Sing-Sing. Making AG about the scandals is rather like making the article on Sing-Sing about the Sacco and Venzetti (sp) trial. Sorry to be so pedantic, but my feelings on the article are rather that of a pedant in nature. Thanks V. Joe 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Conflict

Take another peek at Template talk:911hijack. // FrankB 03:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Currituck.jpg

Hi, I noticed that this image you uploaded claims to be fairuse. After checking out the source of the image, its copyright information is not exactly crystal clear. In all likelihood, this image was created by the US Navy or a sailor that was on duty. In which case this image could be claimed under the public domain of Template:PD-USGov-Mil-Navy. However I do not wish to just assume this is case. I was wondering if you happen to know any more about this image, or where it came from? Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 17:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto Terror

Sorry, I didn't realize you in the middle of creating the article in question. --Usgnus 18:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syed Haris Ahmed

Nominated for deletion. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 17:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email address

tellembren@hotmail.comDermo69

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:PD-CCTV

Template:PD-CCTV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Pharos 19:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammed Taheri-Azar

I didn't mean to "editorialize" but I don't appreciate you simply reverting my edit without even attempting to remove the "editorialized" portions. That was very sloppy and is unappreciated. AlanzoB 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the note

Thanks for the note. I responded on my talk page. Cheers. -- Geo Swan 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publication-ban template

I'm a bit wary of the wording of the template you've put on the article about the juvenile terrorism suspects in Toronto. The phrase "Great caution should be made when editing the page" raises the question, "Why?" Because of the legal ramifications, or because of WP:NOR? I also don't like the sentence, "Any edits deemed sensitive will be immediately deleted, rather than reverted." What does "sensitive" mean in this context? Remember that there is no such thing as a publication ban in the United States, and neither Wikipedia nor any non-Canadian editor would have any legal liability for violating a Canadian publication ban. -- Mwalcoff 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saeed al-Ghamdi pictures

I don't think it would be possible to tell, from these four pictures, al-Ghamdi's relative age.

• A strong reason to prefer to have the first picture of al-Ghamdi the FBI released, where he is in Western garb, is that this gives readers a better idea of how well he would have melded in with the plane's other passengers.
• On the other hand, the one with evidence legend is much higher resolution.

How would you feel about something like this:

[edit] Saeed al-Ghamdi pictures, in order of their wide distribution

First image of al-Ghamdi to be made public, released by the 911 Commission, in 2002. This is the public image which most closely approximates his appearance when he boarded flight 93 on September 11, 2001.

Image of al-Ghamdi, said to be from an al Qaeda propaganda video, first widely distributed on 200x.

Image of al-Ghamdi, said to be from an al Qaeda training video, first widely distributed on 200x.

Image of al-Ghamdi, used during the trial of Zachariah Moussaui, release on 2006, through a FOIA request.

It would be good to know when the two pictures said to be from al Qaeda films were first widely distributed.

FWIW, there was a discussion in June as to which picture of Omar Khadr should be used.

I am sure you have encountered the same phenomenons I have in discussions of counter-terrorism:

1. For some people the indisputable and widely accepted evidence of real involvement in terrorism is insufficient -- and they let themselves repeat, or expand on exaggerations, or outright falsehoods.
   • One of the most influential books I read when I was a teenager, 30 years ago, was James Randi's The Magic of Uri Geller. Randi was a professional magician, and one of the founders of PSICOP. Geller was a "psychic" mindbender. Randi followed Geller on the talk-show circuit, demonstrating that he could duplicate all of Geller's psychic performances using sleight of hand and misdirection. Randi devoted a series of chapters of his book to deconstructing laudatory (and credulous) articles by journalists who met Geller, and was convinced he demonstrated psychic powers. Randi devoted a chapter to a writer for Psychology Today, who found (1) that when he spent time with and interviewed Geller, that all the psychic events happened when he was running errands, or was in the other part of the room; (2) that those who were convinced that Geller had psychic powers, by being around Geller when a psychic event happened would later exaggerat, often wildly so. Geller's feats. I think that we see something similar happening with the exaggerations and bad judgement against those accused of involvement with al Qaeda.
2. The allegations against some of those who have fallen under suspicion of a connection with 9-11 are so powerful that they bypass some observers critical faculties.
   • The possibility of cases of mistaken identity doesn't occur to them -- or indeed, they find literally inconceivable. I found myself shocked, over and over again, following the US Supreme Court's ruling on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. So many journalists and politicians, who we should expect to know better by now, that all the Guantanamo detainees are terrorists.
   • Everyone seems to have forgetten six degrees of separation -- that each of us has wide network of acquaintances -- when we consider the acquaintances of our acquaintances.
   • I don't know how closely you have been following the transcripts of the detainees that I have slowly been trying to summarize for the wikipedia. An alarming number of the intelligence analysts seem unconcerned to follow up on any exculpatory factors, or to simply dream up allegations. One analyst wrote of a detainee, that when he fled Afghanistan to Pakistan he "probably" carried a rifle. Somehow intelligence analyst mismanaged the their record keeping such that allegations migrated from one detainee's dossier to another. The detainees captured following the skirmish at Lejay, Afghanistan, offers several clear examples.
     • Did you read about Abdullah Khan and Khirullah Khairkhwa? Khan, and ethnic Uzbek, was captured in 2003. During his youth he had traveled to the Pashtun region of Afghanistan, and worked for a rich land owner named Shahzada during harvest season. Twenty years later, after Karzai came to power, Shahzada travels to the Uzbek region. While there he runs into Khan. It turns out that the two of them are fans of cock-fighting and dog-fighting. Khan recognizes his former boss at a dog fight, after seeing him for the first time in twenty years. Shahzada tells Khan he is looking to buy a new dog, for his kennel. Khan gives his former boss a valuable dog. In return Shahzada tells Khan, that if he ever comes to Shahzada's region he should be his guest. Six months later Khan does visit Shahzada. His first night Shahzada invites a friend who is not a Pashtun, an in-law of his who is an ethnic Tajik, who lives in a small Tajik enclave in the the Pashtun region. From their description, the three of them play cards, avoid politics, even avoid personal inquiries.
     • The next day these three men are arrested by American soldiers, based on a tip by one of Shahzada's neighbours -- who presumably pockets 3 x $5000. Khan tells his Combatant Status Review Tribunal that during all of his interrogations his interrogators kept insisting that he was really Khirullah Khairkhwa, and that his denials that he was not Khirullah Khairkhwa were lies. Khan says he pleaded with his interrogators to check the prison roster, because not only wasn't he Khirullah Khairkhwa, but ohter detainees had told him that the real Khirullah Khairkhwa had been captured back in 2001, and was being held in another portion of the camp. Unbelievably, his interrogators fail to take the obvious step of checking the roster. For half a decade Khirullah Khairkhwa had read the Taliban's Press releases -- which must have made his name one of the most widely recognized Afghan names. Every time I think about this failure I am shocked, all over again, at the failure of American intelligence analysts to take the obvious step of sanity checking their theories. Running the Guantanamo camps has cost more than half a billion dollars. Running Guantanamo has tied down several battalions of soldiers. Yet intelligence analysts seemed willing to blow a million bucks a pop by failing to consider the exculpatory evidence.

You have probably experienced the same accusations I have, that by trying to write neutrally about terrorism and counter-terrorism, we are helping terrorism, or making the world less safe. I suspect you will agree with me that the complete opposite is the truth. We have limited resources to devote to counter-terrorism. So how to use those resources should be based on rational arguments, not emotional arguments. Making decisions on unreliable evidence costs innocent lives. The coercive (or worse) interrogations of Ibn Sheikh Al-Libi and Mohammed al-Qahtani prove that.

Well, I will stop preaching to the choir.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 04:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Terrorism and an article that needs cleanup

I've merged an article about a wrongly accused terrorist, Adel Abdulhehim, but it needs work. I can't determine what is POV, what can be removed, etc. I added to the list of articles in WikiProject Terrorism but I figured I should alert someone in case my addition goes unnoticed. Can you help with the article, or if not, direct me to someone who can? Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Food Not Bombs

I'm not sure why you moved the part about dumpster diving, but I started a discussion on the FNB talk page. If you could comment there, that would be nice. Thanks. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chubbuck funeral.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Sherurcij

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Sherurcij has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

This template has been deleted, re the decision at the deletion discussion. Where used, it has been replaced with {{CopyrightedFreeUse-User|Sherurcij}} --Robdurbar 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ricearoni.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ricearoni.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New user

Sorry, I just found this site and was ddoing a bit of exploring. Mabey I will get my own account? -Kurt

Wow, you have written alot of good articles. -Kurt

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamal Al-Gashey

Look, man, I don't want to get into an editing war with you, but here are the facts:

• Under VERY suspicious circumstances, the three Fürstenfeldbruck murderers were allowed to escape German justice.
• Both Gen. Ulrich Wegener (aide-de-camp for West German Interior Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher) and Hans-Jochen Vogel (head of the West German OOC) admitted ON FILM that the Germans were looking for an "out" so that they wouldn't have to try the Munich murderers - thus the staged hijacking.
• The Germans, for 20 years, refused to let the relatives of the Munich victims have access to documentation which would have shown the world how badly they screwed up the "rescue attempt" - the whole point of letting the murderers go (i.e. disposing of evidence).

Unless you're some sort of an apologist for terrorists, I don't see how stating documented fact is a violation of POV. There's no way to whitewash what the Germans did, both during and after the rescue attempt. BassPlyr23 ^(BassPlyr23) 08:52, 16 September 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Yelizaveta mironova.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yelizaveta mironova.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Hortons

I see you restored the image of the Timbits hockey player to the article. While I don't have strong feelings about the inclusion of the image either way, another editor did recently remove it from the article and provided his/her rationale in the edit summaries. It would be helpful if you would respond to that editor's concerns, on the talk page or in an edit summary, prior to restoring the image. You need not agree with the other editor, but restoring it without any explanation might not be the way to go. Thanks for your help. Skeezix1000 12:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:ZiadRentalForm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ZiadRentalForm.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galactic Market

Hello again. I've nominated Galactic Market for deletion; the discussion can be viewed here. Would appreciate your input. – Matthew A. Lockhart ^(talk) 03:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:5-dead-goebbels.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:5-dead-goebbels.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Lupo 07:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be low:

Edit summary usage for Sherurcij: 17% for major edits and 46% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Awww, what a sweet bot :P Anyways, for anybody reading this, 90% of my edits are on my own articles - so that'd be why it's so low - I don't feel the need to educate myself about what I'm doing, it's just a waste of time ;)

What are your "own articles" on a public encyclopedia that anyone can edit?  :-) You should not assume that no one is watching an article that you created, as articles can be added to watchlists even before the articles themselves exist. In our case, the lack of edit summaries caught my notice when you made over a dozen edits to same article, all without edit summaries. Also, using edit summaries helps make the job of recent changes patrollers a lot easier. Either way, edit summaries are a nice courtesy to other editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MCReynolds-yearbook.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MCReynolds-yearbook.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Final occupants of the Führerbunker}}

Hi Sherurcij,

(rvt back one)

Any particular reason/s...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

...I felt that aesthetically, things were left off-balance by the new attempt to format the styles of the lists, there was too much blank-space, things were not center-aligned, and it took up significantly more space than the earlier version - making it more difficult for users to quickly navigate.

Thanks for your thoughts. I'll try restoring some of the other features I introduced without compromising the above; I'd appreciate your feedback again once I've made the edit. Yours, David (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

... standby; recent edit was incomplete (apologies!). David (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

... Okay, how do you feel about the current version...?  I'd prefer the italics to go above every list of people, not just "Still present when..." and "Date of departure..." – but that would increase the template's depth a little more. Yours, David (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

... Have returned to the template and now feel the current version is a good balance between ease of navigation (bold headings aligned) and space usage. Hope you agree!  Best wishes, David (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

PS I could use more space by placing the April 22/23 entries and the April 30/May 1 entries on single rows; yes, table work would be more involved, but I can see how it could be achieved. David (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Hope you're happy with the status quo. I'm about to stub the remaining four redlinks, unless you already have material or plans...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gustav Weler socks

The program mentioning doppelganger Gustav Weler and his worn socks may have been on National Geographic Channel and may have been a program about the last days of the fuhrer bunker. There was a photo of Gustav Weler that strongly resembles the one in the article with Weler lying down. I am sorry that I cannot be much more specific.

Tabletop 03:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bscap007.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bscap007.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Okh-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Okh-2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Susan L. Hefle DYK reconsideration

I rewrote the DYK nomination on Susan L. Hefle per your complaint. I failed to put the initial date and time of submission when I submitted it on October 15. Please have a look at this and reconsider this for a DYK. Chris 12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your help on Susan L. Hefle DYK

Even though you did not contribute to the Susan L. Hefle article, I wish to thank you for your assistance in making me modify my DYK nomination on her. I ended up rewriting the DYK and I received it earlier today. Thank you for your assistance. I greatly appreiacted it. FYI: I have more DYK's than you do now (My 6 to your 5). Chris 12:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Whitman

Yeesh. Well. It's his usual 3-4 week rule. I'll take a look. Bat signal...lol. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked 2HOT2 indefinitely. Very obviously John. He doesn't even really tried to hide...he's that arrogant. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep I hear ya. I've had to change my Wiki email address twice due to him. He's essentially a stalker. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Moore just posted your email address on my user talk page. I reverted him. Should I go to the Oversight folks and have them remove the address from the record or is it ok with you to have your email addy posted. Let me know. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. That's a good attitude to have. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Sorry to bother you with this, but Image:Galesi mod 503 cal 6 35mm-01.jpg probably doesn't pass the first FUC, so I've tagged it as such. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Same with Image:Armi-Galesci.jpg. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK's as of today

I see your DYK tie of 6 and I raise you one to 7. Have a nice day.Chris 12:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Inglis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Inglis.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dr Zak 14:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[3] Sorry, no, a website isn't a real attribution. We would need the photographer or copyrigght holder or archive to make this traceable. Dr Zak 04:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Problem!

Yeah sure, no problem man! ;) If you need anything, I'll be glad to lend a hand. All the best my friend. :) --Anas Salloum 08:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] update

Thanks for the update on Majid Khan. What I suspect is that the real secret of the American interrogations will turn out to be how phenomonally amateurish and worthless they have been. Not worthless -- worse than useless -- actually very damaging to our overall safety.

Basing counter-terrorism efforts on false confessions coerced from innocent men makes us all less safe, rather than more safe. Similarly, basing counter-terrorism efforts on allegations from mentally unbalanced detainees who turned accuser to settle grudges, or to secure more privileges for themselves, makes us all less safe. I think the announcement that they intend to charge 70 detainees is a tacit acknowledgement that they have recognized that most of the detainees were not terrorists in the first place.

At least one of the Presiding Officers of the first Administrative Review Boards is clearly deeply prejudiced, and deeply malicious. You get to recognize some of the signature mannerisms of these anonymous officers. The first time I read one of the hearings he presided over I was shocked by his malevolence. I wondered if he presided over the hearing when he was drunk. That particular detainee sounded like one of the innocent ones, who should never have been classified as an enemy combatant. But at the end of the hearing the Presiding Officer proceeds to tear a strip off of him, because he believed he hadn't been obeying the camp rules. I didn't see anything in the "factors" that stated that the detainee had not been compliant. Similarly, I didn't see anything in the recorded testimony to indicate he had not been compliant. Either the Presiding Officer had been tipped off, or he was basing his diatribe solely on the colour of the detainee's jumper.

Among the justifications for continuing to detainee the captives are:

• Lead prayer sessions. Several detainees have the assertion that they lead prayer sessions listed as a factor favoring their continued detention. If the detainees were being given the protections guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions I believe this would be a serious violation of their human rights. I believe captives are allowed free exercise of their religion.
• Detainees are asked whether their treatment at Guantanamo has embittered them against the USA. If they are innocent men, then they were basically kidnapped, then I don't believe they should be punished for acts of civil disobedience, or other non-compliance with the camp rules, when their detention was itself illegal.

But, maybe I am preaching to the choir?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 00:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks very much for your assistance on the 3RR thing. The next edit will be my third - probably not my last though! Cheers. Bubba hotep 09:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallujah

You did an excellent job in cataloguing the fatalities of the conflict in Fallujah. Your work and research on Vigilant Resolve has been one of the pages greatest assets. However if you note the talkpage coments I’ve linked you will see that though your count was very inclusive it did not account for all fatalities, [4] as a result I have temporarily reverted the casualties to the last official version of the page; the Guardian Unlimited interactive that covers both Vigilant resolve , and Phantom fury (it covers 1st Fallujah from P2-7) and lists 1st Fallujah’s casualties on page 7 if you dispute my decision and decide to revert my actions please let me know. Thank you Freepsbane 18:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goebbelskinder

No, what you see is what I found on Youtube. I know nothing more about it, except that some parts have a BBC logo in the corner. You may be able to contact whoever posted it to Youtube. Adam 23:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Yosri1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yosri1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 04:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Fallujah

Hello again Sherurcij, my apologies for the slow response. It seems that I misstated my previous post; I meant to say that the guardian interactive that I spoke of does specifically chart coalition casualties sustained on operation vigilant resolve(on page 7), as you know The Guardian is one of Brittan’s largest newspapers and clearly meets the criteria under Wikipedia:Reliable sources holding priority over original research. As a result I believe we should use the casualties figures cited in the guardian. As of this moment I have made no changes in the page and am awaiting your input. Thank you for reading this message. Freepsbane 17:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As of October 30 you have not offered any input over the casualty section, as a result I have altered the section. If you believe this was in error please let me know.Freepsbane 01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darfur rally images

Thanks for the photos from the Darfur rally, especially those of Justin Trudeau. I've uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons, so that people on any of the Wikimedia projects can instantly use the images. See here. I'd encourage you to upload them to there in the future. Once they're on Commons, they can be used in the same way an image on Wikipedia itself is used with the [[image: stuff. Thanks! -- Zanimum 18:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallujah casualties

• I'm with Looper5920 as for the Fallujah casualties. I crossreferenced the units from where the killed guys came and came to the number 33, but I have crossreferenced them once again and have lowered the number once again. If the names of the participating units are correct than that would mean that only 26 Marines and soldiers were killed from April 4th to May 1st when the Americans withdrew from the city. I think we should decide with what number to go with 26,33 or more than 83 as some say which is just stupid. Before any of you make any jugment check the units as I did, I have already put the names of the killed and their units on the discussion page and crossreferenced them. See if it is 26 or 33, one of those. It most certanly is not 83.--Top Gun 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ARBCOM ON FALLUJAH CASUALTIES

Sherurcij I hope you are going to reply to this message. I agree with you we're best to focus on using individual names, than relying on news reports.But there is a problem, Freepsbane is ignoring the evidence and blindly holding to the "Guardian" number of 83, now he wants to put the discusion about the Fallujah casualties to Arbcom. I wanted to know what your position is on this. I have checked the information on various sites over and over and have come to the same conclusion every time. There were 53 deaths in Anbar during the whole month of april in contrast to what he is saying that 83 were killed in just Fallujah. I have crossreferenced time and again the units those guys belonged to and have concluded that 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division and 3rd Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment were at Ramadi, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment was at Hit, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment was at Husaybah and the Naval construction battalion was at Ramadi. All the others were at Fallujah at the time. And 27 of the 53 killed belonged to the units I named here. As for the quotation by Marshalbannana from Thomas E. Ricks' book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq: "Mattis was furious. 39 Marines and U.S. Soldiers had died - for what? " He said that was from the end of the 1st week of fighting I think that was not understood well. I think that he refered to 39 killed in the whole of the country in the first four days of fighting from April 4th to April 9th. I checked and indeed around that number were killed in the whole of the country by the end of the first week of the siege of the city. So I hope you respond to my message and tell me your position on this. --Top Gun 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I agree there should be a compromise at least to put the number of killed to be 25 to 50 or so and not to make this kind of a mistake just because some guy belives one news article.--Top Gun 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)