Talk:US base in Nuristan, Afghanistan attacked

If this was your do-over of the first one with the typo in the title, not bad. My first contributions were picking up on articles other people had done like this and finding another source to expand enough to not need the tag. So it is useful if you want to just write a couple of short paragraphs like this, it offers some work for other editors who may be looking around and not have a specific story they want to cover. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian. I know it is a short article, but this is really all that the sources agree on. For example, did they use mortars or rockets? Was there air support? I suppose I could just pick one and run with it, but I think I have all the facts that could be gleaned from the sources. Just look at how much fluff they have. One article even starts talking about something completely different.--SVTCobra 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As Brian says, more editors need to get involved expanding this before it can be published. Also, what is the basis for referring to the people killed as "insurgents"? I notice one of the sources uses the term "rebels" in the headline and I think trhere is a difference. Neutralizer 17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Another source called them Taliban. Yet another said they were likely the Hezb-e-Islami militant group. One quoted an officer who called them extremists. I went with what I thought was the "generally accepted" term. If I had my way I would call them terrorists. --SVTCobra 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess fluff is what the people want. --SVTCobra 17:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, more details have emerged - so fluff is minimal. --SVTCobra 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this article also shows the bias of its "creator"? :) that's why it is so important for others to get involved editing. I have to go to my job now but I will work on this article later; btw, if I had my way, I'd call them "freedom fighters" or "the occupation resistance". Neutralizer 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it does, but please point it out to me. . . Oh, so, you understand why I used "insurgents" then? --SVTCobra 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't bite the newbies. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This has developed nicely, good work. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brian. This being the first story that I initiated, I started to worry that it would be sent back to the Newsroom until it was no longer news. Still it is a shame that it was not in the headlines (for any extended period of time) until the day was nearly over. Perhaps I should have added the Template:Breaking so that the story could develop while remaining a headline. I don't think anyone was saying that it wasn't news.--SVTCobra 23:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just got back from work and I see that it is now a great article. Congrats SVTCobra (I hope you saw the humour in the "creator" comment since you said something similar about an article I started; anyway, just my pathetic attempt at humour) Neutralizer 01:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I did see the humor. Brian thought you were just bashing a n00b, but he hadn't seen my comment at this story. --SVTCobra 02:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)