Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 18 January 2010 (→List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan(Update): Please request this on the article Talk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Full protection of North American Soccer League (2010)

Completely protecting North American Soccer League (2010) because of an edit war and 3RR between 2 users, over one line of text is not the correct course of action. Block the users, don't block the page! Please revert; given yesterday's decision by USSF to create the new 2-division league including NASL, it makes it very difficult to keep the article current. Nfitz (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection has been lifted. Everyone can go back to work, peacefully I hope. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:TwoHorned on the David Littman (historian) BLP

User Two horned has continued his edit warring on the same article as he was warring on yesterday, today he is repeatedly adding content that is coatracking and has nothing to do with this living person, I have given him two more warnings to no avail, the last one was, please don't add it again or I will report you, he ignored that and added it back again. this is the tagging on he is inserting.. and which features Vlaams Belang, among others entities, as a "counter jihad" organisation. this detail has nothing to do with the subject at all it is simple coatracking. Here you'll see the two warning I have given him tonight.Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's completely related to the subject as Vlaams Belang is one of the organization mentionned in the web site and conf in question in the article. The truth is that Off2riorob is discarding properly sourced information, and discusses poorly and badly in the talk page, with insults directed at me : here. TwoHorned (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

TwoHorned was already warned in WP:AN3#User:TwoHorned reported by User:Heptor (Result: No action) that he had broken 3RR. The report was closed with no action since it seemed that the revert war was over. Since he has resumed, he's been blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen

As an editor involved with the initial edit war that got this user blocked, and after watching her shirk the opinions of now three (3) administrators, continuing to request "unblock" with no valid reason - I must comment here. I am certain this editor will immediately continue her disruptive behavior as soon as the block expires, and has yet to admit any fault whatsoever, continuing to blame others. She has demonstrated a remarkable lack of WP:AGF, continued and unrepentant gross incivility, and a few other issues, which will be dealt with in due course. I humbly and respectfully request: 1) An extension of the block, per repeated abuse of the editor's "unblock request procedure". This user cannot even appreciate or understand why they were blocked, and continues to ignore WP:GAB - as if this were just another edit war. And 2) I similarly request that her talk page privileges be removed for the duration of her block. This is the third attempt at "unblocking" - is there going to be a fourth and fifth? Thank you for your time... Doc9871 (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I must add, I do and have assumed good faith with SRQ. I don't feel that she is an editor that should be blocked for a long period, or certainly even banned; but she must learn from the mistake she made (her block for edit warring). I don't want to cast a bad light on any editor who has made good edits like SRQ, but she must first openly admit her error and correct her behavior accordingly. I don't wish to see any editor suffer unduly, and I wasn't suggesting any "additional punishment". I want to see this editor improve, as I have been "forced" to... :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

SkagitriverQueen

Johnson,

Thank you for substaining a block on this user. MY personal impression is this individual might have some mental issues, at times- however, at other times, can be productive and useful. Bottom line, myself and others at a current discussion at WQA are commenting on her systematic harassment, stalking, and vandalism. Only reason I am making these comments is that this person has gone out of her way to make false claims against myself. 68.127.156.120 (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are you? This seems to be your first edit on WP - what do you mean "false claims against myself"? No socks, please. If you are a legitimate editor with a grievance, please use your real WP identity... Doc9871 (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your message, its not basically edit war its some what war against terror. What, I am trying to tell you is the truth, which you can sift out easily if you try to be neutral. Hope you understand & verify. Regards,--119.160.32.243 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your quick response. Allow me, some time I am finding proof against them.--119.160.32.243 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for the warning, I will.--Mladifilozof (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth

Ed --

I have no problem with staying away from the article for a week. Do you want that to be that article + talk or just article? I've already stayed away from the article for the 24 hours I promised originally. I thought 3RR is just a 24 block anyway, but fine I'll do the week. jbolden1517 04:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's enough to stay off the article. If you return to the talk page, you could be helpful if you would start an RfC on a least one of the points in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no point. I did start an RFC and 5 people strongly disagreed with some material being included and it was ignored. And essentially the point of the whole thing has been that stuff decided by negotiations should not be thrown out casually. When other people disagree with that basic principle what can an RFC do? They basically are tag teaming to get people blocked. If there is going to be an RFC I think it needs to be on general behavior. But thanks for the advice, wish RFCs were honored. jbolden1517 04:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please point me to the RfC on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Dec_5th_poll Those edits are the ones I got 3RRed on. jbolden1517 05:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion that poll was horribly designed. It's like doing a popularity poll on who likes what revision better. It is more logical to take the disagreements step by step. For instance, make a list what you think are the weaknesses or inaccuracies in the current article. Then look at them individually. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah that was the idea. Just starting with the basics did people like the general direction. The edits that were occurring were thematic. You are looking at a POV struggle here essentially. The details are just details. Heck I even agreed on one of the details (AN Wilson) and they didn't care. The goal of the conversation was never about resolving specifics jbolden1517 05:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you start out assuming that the other parties won't negotiate in good faith, you may not get very far. How about agreeing to mediation? I remind you that the fallback option may be a long period of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree to mediation. You want to mediate? jbolden1517 12:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Please help

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

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

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

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

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

Afghan private security guard losses

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

• The article needs to be semiprotected because of sock editing. I suggest you make this request on the article's talk page, and someone who is more familiar with the topic can review it. If no-one responds, use the {{Editsemiprotected}} template. Another option is for you to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How to use thing thing?{{Editsemiprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.32.188 (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad block

Re Misplaced Pages:ANI#Someone block this disruptive editor? - The editor had received two very stern warnings from administrators threatening to block on continued disruptive behaviour. They have not continued - in fact, had not edited for nearly 24 hours since the warnings. Why did you block despite my urging not to? Exasperation at having to fix past unwanted edits that were made in good faith is not a justifiable reason for blocking. –xeno 13:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It was the fact that he had already removed a block warning, and then continued to do the archiving. Opinions could differ on whether the behavior had stopped as of 07:00 on 13 January, but he had already failed to take any appropriate notice of the ANI. The thread had been open since 11 January, and he had certainly continued past that point. By this time he should have joined the discussion to find out how he could help to undo his changes. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He stopped fussing with WikiProjects and moved to article talk pages. That's a different matter altogether. –xeno 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that the block was premature, you are welcome to undo it. My reaction was due to his complete lack of interest in responding to the ANI thread, plus the fact that many hours of work would be needed to undo what he did. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mladifilozof

Thank you for your concern. I will take a little rest these days. Maybe it is the best solution when the situation becames tense. Greetings! --Mladifilozof (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Creation according to Genesis

Sysop Ed, thank you for your courtesy. I agree to your request that I not edit the above article for one week (13-19 Jan.) Some questions, please.

1. Does User:Ben Tillman not qualify as edit warring during the same period as I? Just for my info, please explain if "no." Is it a case of no one complaining?
2. How does one locate an edit's number, like this: diff=prev&oldid=337146764]
3. I've found that when there are one or two very dominant controlling editors of an article, consensus on any edits contrary to their view is essentially not going to happen. What appeal processes are available in a case like this?
4. Revision as of 00:34, January 11, 2010 is not my edit. (All the others on your 3RR list are mine.) I cannot understand how that edit, which did occur at a time when I was logged in, is even possible. I want to get to the bottom if this so I can prevent it from happening again.

I will appreciate this assistance. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to the proposal.

1. It is hard for a reviewing admin to tell very much about an article with so many edits, and it's conceivable that others may be warring as well.
2. How to interpret diffs: if you just bring up the article's history, and click on one of the 'prev' buttons, it will open a diff page. The diff page has a complete URL, which may end with a string such as diff=prev&oldid=337146764. See m:diff.
3. If you have not tried using an WP:RFC before, I suggest that you consider one. This provides a way to obtain a clear consensus on a Talk page. Since the lead of the article seems to have evolved somewhat since your last edit, it's possible that it does not annoy you so much now.
4. I can't explain the unusual diff that you found, that does not seem to be your edit.

One advantage of an RFC is that they can be advertised, to bring in more editors than just the ones who are usually active on the article. The prospects of arriving at a genuinely neutral version can thus be enhanced. For content disputes, there is really no completely satisfactory appeal process. The best you can do is get more opinions. If article wording is in dispute, it is usually best to convert it into a debate about what the sources say. Discussions about sources are the best to have, since they are more likely to arrive at a solution. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for your prompt, complete, and very helpful responses. I'm grateful for your suggestions, and for the time you took to write them to me. Afaprof01 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Pubococcygeus muscle

Your evaluation, asking for a WP:Third opinion, doesn't reflect reality. There were a number of people involved, Freikorp, 2010 Duncan, NickPenguin, all opposing Minutae, which, against consensus and ignoring the warnings, kept adding his original research to the article. I ask you to reevaluate that.--Nutriveg (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

White Brazilian

Good afternoon, my friend. Could you be kind and tell me why you've protected the White Brazilian article? The only reason why it was protected before was because one editor began reverting other editor's edits but gave no reason to it. He has departed the article's talk page for quite some time by now. Why protect it if the editor that caused the first protection has abandoned the article itself? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:White Brazilian#Protection again. If most of the editors want protection lifted, I guess it should be done. The earlier problem was that that there was no talk page consensus for anything, and the reverts were large and confusing. See my new comment on Talk and please sketch out what changes you would favor. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for answering me. Well, I'll write there a few comments, then. Thank you once again! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the other topic about the subject until now. I do remember that editor Off2riorob was the one (and only one) who complained about Ninguém's edits on the article although he did not give any reason to why he was against it. He never brought, for example, a book that said something different from what Ninguém was writing. And arguing that "mass edits" are occuring has never been an issue as long as it were done to improve the article. The article has been for weeks protected until everyone simply got tired of discussing with him as he kept denying telling us what was wrong with it and according to which authors. Now the article was unprotected and he has returned to complain that another editor was making edits in it? Why he abandoned the talk page and left the article to dust for weeks, then? Only to keep the article unchanged? So, to him no one can make any edit in the article or else it has to be kept protected? Isn't that ownership? Is that reasonable? Could you simply ask him this: "According to which authors are Ninguém's edits wrong?" If he brings sources instead of simply "I don't like your changes so I'll revert them" I promisse that I will support him. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Protected

White Brazilian is still protected and the editors have move on to similar projects at related articles, I don't like to see this article protected long term, have you get any suggestions, one possible one is if I take it off my watchlist and you unlock it, the wiki wheels won't drop off, what do you think? Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better discussed at Talk:White Brazilian. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss it where ever you want, I just wanted a quiet word with the protecting Admin. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left a question over at User talk:Hoary. We'll see how it goes from there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you remove the protection? The article is again being mass edited by the previous editor, under the comment, "back to work" ? Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The only reasonable objection you raised concerning the article was the size of the lead. As you may see, I am keeping the lead short - in fact, quite shorter than the previous version. Ninguém (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What we were missing before was any kind of a talk page consensus on what to do. If you can get others to express an opinion on Talk, and back your changes, then most likely we are done, and there will be no further need for protection. For instance, if you, Off2riorob and Hoary all wanted the same thing, I suspect that it would be the winning proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Linear Programming repeated adding of unpublished papers

Hello Ed!

Here's an update on Linear Programming.

The fellow put back his thesis. I used the WP utilities for checking IP address, and they indicate that the editor"s" all come from Malaysia, even though one of the displayed IP-numbers begins with a different prefix.

The name of the registered editor is similar to the user name of the sourced account at "Optimization On-Line", a repository of reprints. The thesis thanks people in Malaysia for their assistance. It seems to be a potential case of conflict of interest, as you noted on the registered editor's page, before.

Today, I observed that the claimed representation admits the trivial solution of omega=0, so the claimed result is obviously wrong.

I did invite the registered editor to try to contribute to a stand alone article on "generalized inverses in linear programming", but there's been no response there either. (This seemed to be most constructive use of his energies and material, imho.)

Again, thanks for your help before. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This material was restored by another IP-editor (without comment):

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article, on the assumption that COI-affected IPs are trying to force the mention of certain publications that would not otherwise be included. Will you consider opening a complaint at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, if this has not already been done? Whether PhD theses are considered 'unpublished' is a gray area, so I would prefer to use citations to judge the matter. If the PhD work is not very well known, as judged by Google Scholar or other appropriate rankings, then the IP promotion of this work may need to be resisted. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Following your suggestion, I wrote a . Thanks again for your help. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I updated my notice there with three other articles where the manuscript of Dr. Abdullah has been posted, and sometimes removed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Feedington requesting unblock

{{Tb}} -FASTILY 04:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I let him know he can be unblocked if he'll agree to get his image uploads checked for copyright compliance. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: January 2010

Hi EdJohnston, I just want to help Misplaced Pages peformance by archiving talk page both article and WikiProjects. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re So-called Editing War With Respect to Linear Programming

From Jalaluddin Abdullah: Surely it takes two at least for a war, so what are the motives of the other party? Surely three Ph.D's and a book are sufficient (and I haven't found any serious mistakes in any of them, including my own Ph.D. and book). As for "unpublished", at law I think twenty (20) copies in the public domain constitutes publication and I dare say there are considerably more than twenty copies of the (which happens to be my) book on computers; as for "published" work in the area, it is in my opinion quite turgid (I mean Cline and Pyle) which is why I did not refer to it. As for COI, I suggest you ask yourself if the person who keeps removing my addition has a problem and maybe even a conflict of interest - perhaps that person should be blocked. And how do you know that "nobody but you supports including this material"? Misplaced Pages is not supposed to contain unsubstantiated statements.

Moreover: Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote "Today, I observed that the claimed representation admits the trivial solution of omega=0, so the claimed result is obviously wrong." Yes, certainly the fixed-point representation admits the trivial solution ${\displaystyle \omega =0}$, but perhaps he should focus his eyes on the word "Nontrivial" in Bruni's Ph.D. thesis, before embarrassing himself further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjjalal (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

About notability and reputability, and the alleged "turgidity" of Cline & Pyle: Cline and Pyle published articles, which were favorably reviewed; then their results were discussed in two books by Campbell (Pitman and then republished by Dover; the second by SIAM), and perhaps other authors.

As far as I can see, Dr. Abullah's research in linear programming remains in an unpublished Birmingham thesis (not at Cornell or Stanford or Georgia Tech or Cambridge or Edinburgh, etc.) which has never been published in an article on linear optimization listed by Google Scholar. His latest "book" doesn't cover "nonlinear optimization" as claimed in his Misplaced Pages entry (which has been repeatedly inserted), but only convex minimization and even there his "method" collapses (see his section 9.3.2), so that his text was misleading. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Day NYC

You are invited to celebrate Misplaced Pages Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Misplaced Pages Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Misplaced Pages Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a message

NPOV?

I believe I have been referred to the admins because of my views rather than the edits themselves.andycjp (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC) If I was an an atheist and a liberal no one would say anything.andycjp (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy the edits to back pain that you have made have nothing to do with political views this is about proper formatting of an encyclopedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Despite not ruling in my favor, I wanted to thank you anyway for the speedy response and for pointing me towards a resolution on the other issue on the Saoirse Ronan article. Take care. RyanGFilm (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Page used to advertise theater company

Your attention here would be much appreciated. There is a user called Smatprt being an acronym for Stephen Moorer AT Pacific Repertory Theatre. He is the founder of the Pacific Repertory Theatre. On 22 July 2006, he created an article about himself and such was the concern that it was put up for deletion on 20 July 2009 but the decision then was "keep". At that time the article was 34,000 bytes. However, it has now grown to 46,000 bytes and recently he has uploaded a photo of himself . It now seems clear, if it wasn't then, that this article is intended for self-promotion. TermiteGo (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If a person already has an article on them which survived AfD, then uploading a photo for that article seems OK to me. Could we be looking at different articles? I see that Stephen Moorer is about 17,000 bytes and has hardly changed since July, 2009. Personally, I agree with the Keep result of the AfD. I'm not seeing any big problem with promotion -- maybe a phrase could be tweaked here or there. What change do you think should be made? EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Please see my response at the coi noticeboard, as TermiteGo is the likely sockpuppet of banned user:BarryisPuzzled. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

White Brazilian

If I had a dollar for every time my name was mentioned I would be starting to get very rich, I made a good faith request the other day but they didn't want it, there is no debate as such for me to actually join, I will happily remove myself from the issue, go for it unlock it, I don't like to see an article locked for so long, I made my position clear that actually all I wanted was a bit of discussion as the pov of the article was being totally altered without discussion. Tiresome, the wiki will overcome... go ahead for me..unlock it..I will keep out of the meele, no worries, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced message

Hi. I believe this message was meant for you. -- Whpq (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

NW at AN3

I see you've been active at AN3 today; I'd like to draw your attention to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:NimbusWeb_reported_by_User:William_M._Connolley_.28Result:_.29. Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, has been dealt with William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cladistics

Thanks for the kind words. I got into the subject when I noticed that many other areas of the encyclopedia seemed to involve it and yet no one could figure out what was meant from the articles given. I see my role as mainly producing some clarity here, which can be partly had by attention to the confusing formatting - no one's fault, WP takes a while to learn. I'm still learning. However it appears that confusing use of language is the main impediment. For example, as plesiomorphy and synapomorphy are RELATIVE terms non-careful use can completely destroy any meaning a section was intended to impart. So, I'm not really adding or taking away any content or taking sides in any controversy, only trying to make sure that whatever is said has authority and comprehensibility. It's up to people like you to add strategic direction and appropriateness of content. Thanks.Dave (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan(Update)

Please add below this Add below information in this article.article.http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

In 2010, 21 policemen and 16 soldiers were reported killed.

• January 14, 2010 - A police officer was killed and six others were wounded Wednesday in a roadside bombing in Ghazni province.

• January 17, 2010 - Various taliban attacks in country killed 2 Afghan soldiers, 5 policemen and an Afghan district chief.

• January 18, 2010 - A policeman killed in explosions and heavy machine-gun in Afghan capital, Kabul.

Afghan private security guard losses

• January 13, 2010 - An Afghan PMC killed by a gunfire during a protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.131.120 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please make these requests on the article's Talk page. I doubt the practicality of doing these updates on a daily basis. Perhaps the article should be changed to only present summary information that is occasionally updated. If you are actually User:Top Gun, you should not be making these requests at all. Instead, apply for unblock on the talk page of your registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34790930/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
2. http://www.realclearworld.com/news/ap/international/2010/Jan/12/afghan_police__policeman_killed_in_suicide_attack.html , http://www.newsday.com/news/world/afghan-police-policeman-killed-in-suicide-attack-1.1694992
3. http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/01/blast_kills_two_american_soldi.html , http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_180, http://www.canada.com/news/Factbox+Security+developments+Afghanistan/2436264/story.html
4. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34752416/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
5. http://en.trend.az/regions/world/usa/1617428.html
6. http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/SHIG-7ZSJ7K?OpenDocument, http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SGE60G01W.htm
7. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100118/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
8. http://www.samaa.tv/News16129-2_US_soldiers_among_7_killed_in_Afghan_violence_.aspx
9. Extra refrence:The UN report also highlighted the "cultural insensitivity" of some foreign troops. The report's release comes a day after nine people were reported killed in a protest in southern Helmand province's Garmsir district. Violence erupted on Tuesday over rumours that NATO-led forces had defiled a copy of the Muslim holy book the Koran during a military operation. "Eight protesters were killed when the protesters attacked national security officials in Garmsir," deputy provincial police chief Kamaluddin Khan told AFP. http://www.samaa.tv/News16129-2_US_soldiers_among_7_killed_in_Afghan_violence_.aspx