Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Summichum (talk | contribs) at 18:36, 21 February 2014 (→A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Dispute resolution

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I appreciate all the work you're doing. You seem to be everywhere. Keep up the constructive edits, Pass a Method talk 02:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. To quote my favorite vandal CrustyPores = LustyRoars, "spreading the truth, kicking ass and taking names. Look for me wherever there is a troll that needs to be shanked or an article which needs to be fixed. I will be there, whispering on the wind." If only all vandals were as entertaining as him. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

For what ever reason I read that quote and hear: The Ghost of Tom Joad (song)Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Civilian Casualty Ratio

Sean, I'd just like to ask for clarification of the ratio edit that you reverted on Civilian casualty ratio. It doesn't seem to make sense that 182% of the casualties were civilians, which is the way most lay readers of Misplaced Pages will understand it. It does make sense to express this as "67% of the casualties were civilians". Note that 2:1 is expressed as 67% under the WWII section. The article should be consistent and clear enough for a non-mathematician to understand. Cmacauley (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I understand why you made that change now. I agree that it is far clearer for the reader to see statements of the form "67% of the casualties were civilians" or things like "The civilian to combatant fatality rate in World War II lies somewhere between 3:2 and 2:1, or from 60% to 67% of the total number of casualties were civilians". But I think the word ratio should be used instead of rate. Rate is the wrong word. Yes, there really is no limit to my pedantry. Or maybe rate is the right word in this specific context. I don't know actually. Perhaps you do. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of rate in this context is that it is a calculation of the casualties sustained within a given time period, as in annual casualty rate. I agree with you that ratio is the correct term here, as we are comparing combatant casualties to noncombatant casualties. This article is really kind of a mess, but cleanup will require some serious research into the statistics, which is more than I have time to do at present. I'd like to add a section on civilian casualties in Afghanistan but the amount of information on this subject is massive.Cmacauley (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice Biography

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	trying to amicable resolve Summichum (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)