User talk:Mike McGregor (Can)

Discussion on "friendly fire" as hostile circumstances

Hi Mike. On the page Coalition casualties in Afghanistan - Canadian, shouldn't "friendly fire" (a misnomer) deaths be counted under "hostile circumstances"? "Friendly fire" takes place under hostile circumstances, not in non-hostile situations: Any accidental gunshot deaths taking place in non-hostile circumstances get called "accidental gunshot deaths", not "friendly fire". The "friendly fire" comes from an ally, but when they are shooting they consider themselves to be in a hostile circumstance and believe, albeit mistakenly, that they are shooting at a hostile party, and the fatal mistake occurs largely because of the confusion of the hostile situation. My 2 cents ... Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.196.239 (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Friendly fire deaths were moved to the accidental side to seperate them from deaths actually caused by enemy forces. It's worth noting that the majority of Canadian FF deaths occurred when aircraft dropped bombs on a training exercise after mistaking tracer fire as AA fire. I don't really feel strongly towards the FF deaths being categorised as under hostile circumstances or accidental, but if you do revert, please be sure to do the same at Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Kept your version, but changed 78 to 77 due to enemy fire so that the numbers add up and match with Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.200.176 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the CAN Casualties clean-up

Thanks for straightening up the formatting. Much appreciated. Milnews.ca (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies about CF news release links, and two more to add...."

I note you've been removing old CF news release links that no longer work from the Canadian casualties page - first I've heard they don't work is via the talk page. Also, I don't know how to do the multiple grid formatting, but two more soldiers have been killed 28-12-08...

Canadian Press

National Post

CBC.ca

CTV.ca

and the CF statement (with a link that works for now, anyway) Take care... Milnews.ca (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - another question: any criteria re: "hometown"? According to French-language media reports, WO Roberge was born in Quebec (the province) but grew up in Ontario. Media reports quoting his dad suggest the father may live in Sudbury. Any guidance appreciated. Milnews.ca (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags

Hey there! I noticed you added a fact tag (appropriately) to the article White squall, but used square brackets instead of curly brackets. For the "citation needed" template, you need to write {{fact}}, or {{fact|January 2008}} if you want to date the fact tag. If you already knew this and just made a typo, ignore me. And, incidentally, I removed the offending sentence anyway because it's been around for a while and no sources seem to exist. Anyways, happy new year. --Fullobeans (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Hill 70

I have completely re-written Battle of Hill 70 and nominated it for GAN. If you could look over the work for copy-editing purposes that would be appreciated.Labattblueboy (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan

• Can I ask why have you nominated this article for deletion without even discussing it first? If you are going to tell me that it is a carbon copy of that other article and that I stole links from that article then you are wrong. First of all this list doesn't contain the names of the soldiers killed, second I only took nine references from that other article because I needed them the other references are not on that other article, third except for the list of names I have removed a lot of the other text from this article, change a lot of it and added some new. Yes there are still some points in the article that are the same as that other one but that is to be expected since both articles cover ALMOST the same thing. But it's not the same thing. That other article has been presented as a list of coalition soldiers killed in the war in Afghanistan, but it is not is it? It only lists soldiers killed within the borders of Afghanistan and not those killed in the surrounding countries who also died supporting the war in Afghanistan. There is at least a hundred soldiers killed in surrounding countries in the war in Iraq and not in Iraq but are listed as the victims of that war. All links in the article War in Afghanistan link to that other article so people think that is the true number of soldiers killed, but it is not is it? There NEEDS to be a FULL list of ALL soldiers killed as the result of the War in Afghanistan.BobaFett85 (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Couldn't they just look that up at icasualties.org? Anyway, you'll probably want to argue that on the actual AFD page, rather then here. Best of luck. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• If they could just look it up at [[1]] then what is the purpose of that other article you are defending currently? As it is now people who come to Wikipedia will think that article shows the numbers of all soldiers killed in the war, but it doesn't. There needs to be an article that shows the TRUE number of those killed.BobaFett85 (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I already responded on that page.BobaFett85 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a compromise proposition. I myself will delete that additional article I created right here and right now if we added a subsection in the old article where we would specificly mention that beside those killed IN Afghanistan that there were an additional one Canadian and 30 or so US soldiers who died in support of the war but in other countries and not Afghanistan. Also we remove the list of all specific incidents because as it is the article is getting to large and Wikipedia is not a memorial. But we will use all of those references to list the names of US soldiers killed and in specific incidents in a new article called US military casualties in Afghanistan. What do you say? Deal?BobaFett85 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to check with you, before I did a major edit to Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. Per discussion with that annonymous user, I am almost finished with the article which lists all US forces killed in operations in the war in Afghanistan, both in-country in and out. So, per discussion, so for the article not to be so big, I'll remove from the specific incidents section all reports of US soldiers killed since we have that now in this new article I made, also I was thinking of removing the Poles, Danes, Australians, Canadians and Britons as well from the specific incidents section, since we have separate articles for the Australian, Canadian and UK fatalities, there is no need for those incidents to be listed in the article since they are listed in those other articles. As for the Poles and Danes, we have already listed them and the incidents in their own sub-sections of the article. What do you say? Are you ok with this?BobaFett85 (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have finished the article American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan and have thus removed American, Australian, Canadian, British and German casualties names and incidents from the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan since they all now have their separate articles. But editors have started a discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan that the article is to much of a memorial. I pointed out that there are already articles for Canadian, British, German and Australian casualties and also the names and circumstances of deaths of the US soldiers were already listed in the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. I actualy just moved the content to a separate article. But they still claim it to be far too much of a memorial. I proposed that we in that case delete the names of soldiers killed in and around Afghanistan but leave the names of 28 soldiers who died in support of operations in Afghanistan but from other Arabian countries like Kuwait and Bahrain. Also we would leave the sentance which states the number of those killed in and around. Also I found out that the number given by the DoD has been incorect. Icasualties.org, which lists the names of all soldiers killed in the war, has listed the names of 608 soldiers killed in and around Afghanistan and they were all confirmed by the DoD. Still the DoD says 601 died, which is by seven lesser, so I changed the number in the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan to 608 and noted that we are using icasualties.org's number but still also noted that the number is by seven higher than the DoD's. If you want to join in on the discussion about the article American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan you are welcome.BobaFett85 (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for deletion. Your help would be highly apreciated since the article is needed. The discussion is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan.BobaFett85 (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of them are now talking about nominating the Canadian, British and German forces casualties articles for deletion also if this deletion goes through. I know you invested a lot of effort in the Canadian forces casualties article so I think you should get involved in this discussion as soon as posible. One editor also said that if they delete the article they will not allow the reinsertion of all of the old material back into Coalition casualties in Afghanistan and if anyone does it they will be blocked. For now the vote is: four for deletion, three for keep, one for dispute resolve and one who stated he is not for deletion but didn't say keep. BobaFett85 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 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 clearly made my point clear why I wanted the list, to shorten that previous article and to find a definite number of soldiers killed. This list in essence will be to long in a year or so, that much is true, more are dying than the Canadians and Britons, so those lists will not be as that much long. 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 and tell about the circumstances of those deaths as much as we can just like you said. 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 than the article would not be a memorial and they wouldn't make so much of a fuss about it. What do you say, would that be alright? Also, we change the names of the article to United States Forces casualties of Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan.BobaFett85 (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Types and uses of radar

Hi,

I've proposed the merger of Types and uses of radar article into Radar. Could you give your input on that as one of the author at Talk:Radar#Types and uses of radar. Pierre cb (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

PIAT

Hey there. I'm rewriting the PIAT article in a sandbox at the moment; on the article's talkpage you mentioned numbers of PIATs in a Canadian unit. Could you possibly give me those details with a page number for the book? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting

Well, I think that the Canadian article should not have been deleted in the first place but I guess I'll just leave it this way if that's what the consensus was. And maybe anyone else willing to recreate the Canadian article once again can be able to do it successfully. Other than that, I'll just go with anything other editors may wish to do with it in the meantime. Thanks for the notification. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

braincomputerguy

It's neither vandalism or crazy it's facts and it is real...the RCMP are defendants in a Supreme Court Lawsuit Nanaimo Registry SCBC S55166 look it up next time you decide to call something vandalism or crazy...or how about tell the people that the RCMP have done this to that it is crazy...better yet maybe your an RCMP member yourself and you are trying to white wash the truth....better yet why don't you just leave it alone seeing as it';s is under the apprioprate heading "Scandals surrounding the RCMP" or better yet the real scandal is you teking it off this wiki...so just leave it alone