User talk:George/Archives/2009

Lebanon War Article

Hi George,

I posted in the article talk page. To keep the article reputable, having the statement (mostly civilians) when there are several sources cited under the casualties section that show the the numbers are inconclusive (for fighters and civilians) does not preserve its integrity.

I am not calling for a change for it to say 'mostly fighters'. I believe a neutral replacement 'Hezbollah fighters and Civilians' or if you wish 'Civilians and Hezbollah fighters' keeps this article accurate and shows the inconclusive nature of the figure.

-Steve

2006 Lebanon War article editing process

I'm researching the history of the wiki entry for the 2006 Lebanon War for a college course and wanted to know your thoughts on the history of creating the article. You are the user with the fifth most edits for the article. I was wondering if you could give a little insight into the whole process:

What personal experiences, background, etc. has made you interested in editing the 2006 Lebanon War article?
Were you editing this specific pages as news was reported or did you turn to the discussion board before making direct changes?
What sort of page vandalism did you notice as the article progressed?
What was most upsetting about the edit wars going on with this page?
Do you think this article is a good example of neutrality?

I'd love for your candidness on this topic, so please feel free to email me Special:EmailUser/Titkos27

Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titkos27 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

FYI

Grant has been blocked indefinitely. Just so you don't expect a reply. Grsz¹¹ 21:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LebaneseZp

Hi George. I saw your efforts regarding LebaneseZp and their socks. Currently LebaneseZp is concentrating his efforts on the Phoenicia article. Maybe you can also keep an eye until William gets around to blocking the vandal. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 23:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

I need help with Asmahan and Farid al atrash articles.

There is this dispute between me and this Egyptian guy, he claims they are Egyptians (they are not), anyway I changed it to Arab, but still he keeps reverting my edits and falsifying (Egyptifying) the articles, please put an end to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmahan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farid_al-Atrash

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hello there this is User:Goronwy where do you live George?

p.s 'UP WITH COMMUNISM' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goronwy (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Martine Andraos

Thank you for creating it but can you please provide refs for this article? Calaka (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. No by all means, references in different languages are far more preferred than no references at all. We are capable of checking these references with the help of Google Translate so in future, do not be worried about adding references in different languages. Thank you again.Calaka (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humanism

After a very short visit on the talkpage for Humanism I have come to believe that the best way to proceed would be some kind of content dispute resolution process. Those two editors do not seem interested in cooperating at all. I don't know exactly what kinds of processes would be possible but I think we should investigate it.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenician and Jewish people

You are right, the source I cited made no straightforward claim that Jews and Phoenicians were actually the same people with different beliefs -but what about this one[1]? --Gilisa (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golan map

I saw that you just added this map to the article: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Golan_heights_rel89.jpg

But shouldn't it be this map?: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/91/Golan_heights_rel89B.jpg --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George, you say that this is the original CIA map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Golan_heights_rel89.jpg but if you look closely above and under the letter "a" in the word Israel you see it looks like it has been photoshoped. Also if you look at the map from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights the word Israel is over the Golan border If you click on it and look from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Golan_heights_rel89.jpg Israel has moved back and Syria is over the border and it says (Israeli occupied) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Is there something specific that I have done wrong that Grant.Alpaugh did and I should avoid doing like the plague? I'm seriously at a loss for what I might have done to bring about these allegations. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly

I was thinking the same thing last night as I went back and forth with this "new" user. I wouldn't have known how to report it though. Thanks for taking care of this. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing though, I'm not sure how this is going to prove anything regarding Grant having 2 profiles. – Michael (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just have to say that I had been considering that User:AfterMayAndIntoAugust had been Grant, but I wasn't sure how to go about investigating it or who to report to. That user seemed like Grant, showed up shortly after Grant was blocked, and edited similar articles. The user's knowledge and tone in comments was even similar, but in this itiration of himself he was more cooperative at least in my dealings with him. Thanks for staying "heads up" on this one. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

I wasn't looking carefully, I thought these two were the same: Category:Cities, towns and villages in Quneitra Governorate, Category:Cities, towns and villages in the South Governorate, so I deleted one of them.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

George, wonderful work you've doing on the Lebanon article. Just a suggestion, since you're just beginning to fix the article, using the [[#CITEREF|]] for refs is quite helpful, and straightforward. It helps a lot if you intend to promote to GA or FA. Regards. Yazan (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George, it's great that you're putting time into the Lebanon article. It needs much improvement, the system has gotten considerably tighter for GA assessment since the time it was GA. The ref template is exactly that. It reduces clutter. You can put the most used books in a bibliography section, and cite them using only the last name, which will automatically link to the book. Check Abdel Hamid Sarraj for example. Good luck on the Lebanon article, it has a lot of contentious and tricky parts, not to mention how emotions can get out of hand there. Regards. Yazan (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fipplet investigation

I added 3 other IPs, maybe they also should be asked to be checked.(?)--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you haven't seen it yet, Fipplet is now blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fipplet --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please warn yourself

George you are the one who is changing the status quo by removing the sources, if you want to do that then start a discussion and then if there's a consensus then we can change it. Don't play by 2 different rules.George Al-Shami (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

en.wv

You should be clear to log in now. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection on Lebanon?

The Lebanon article gets vandalized quite a bit. . . Do you think it would be worthwhile to request semi-protection? Mnation2 (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried. Mnation2 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Za'atar

More than half the references list salt as an ingredient. This funny conversation between two women about its ingredients shows they disagree on the name of the herb, but agree as to the inclusion of salt. The refs on the use of za'atar and other "spiced salts" in medieval Arab cuisine (cited in the article), lead me to believe it can be described as a spiced salt.
In Nazareth, most people make za'atar with at least a little bit of salt. In East Jerusalem, half of the za'atar is salt (some even using lemon salt to give it an extra zing). I'm not going to fight you over the word "often", but I do think that salt is an important basic ingredient in most za'atar recipes and should be mentioned somehow when describing the basic recipe. Tiamut^talk 10:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask the women in town too about when they put the salt in and how much. I know my mom sometimes makes za'atar in the Lebanese style and I'll ask her what the difference is between that one and our domestic version. Thanks for the reply and followup. Tiamut^talk 11:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Durrah

I'm pressed for time right now, and if the wording is changed, I won't revert again. People who think this is a hoax are crackpots, in my opinion, and they discredit themselves. Dynablaster (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble posting at the moment, but please note that the last sentence in your proposed rewording is wrong; the Israeli government disclaimed its own spokesman's claims about the case, saying that he was only expressing his personal opinion. The government's position is that it has nothing further to add to the official reports that were done at the time (i.e. exonerating the IDF). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorized discussion

I would like to inform you George you may not post more than 3 times a day on a single article. This is a warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.71.189 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly walking around on Wikipedia, I saw that note, and I couldn't resist explaining that this so called warning is not true in any way at all. Do not trust anonymous warnings: you can post as many times as you wish on an article — I've done it many times without trouble. There is a three revert rule, but that doesn't apply to editing. Keep on editing, keep your spirits high, and edit to your hearts contents. Cheers! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with part of your edit of 2006 Lebanon War

Your removal of the phrase "On July 14, 2009 an underground Hezbollah ammunition depot set off a massive series of explosions in the South Lebanese village of Khirbat Silim, just ten miles north of the Israeli-Lebanese border" greatly detracted from the article. Subbing in the word "explosion" just didn't cut it. Nezzadar (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with part of your edit of 2006 Lebanon War

I agree with Nezzadar on this. The explosions were multiple and massive sending many of the residents in the village into a panic. The original wording, ("On July 14, 2009 an underground Hezbollah ammunition depot set off a massive series of explosions in the South Lebanese village of Khirbat Silim, just ten miles north of the Israeli-Lebanese border") was a more accurate reflection of actual events.

Also, in the Nov 21, 2005 abduction attempt, four, not three gunmen were killed. The first 3 were killed when the bullet hit the Hezbollah munitions and a fouth was killed later in the battle.

It would have been nice of you to consult with me before making changes and we could come to consensus. Jiujitsuguy--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montero Loan

Re: [2] Yeah, I hadn't seen your response to the Montero discussion yet. I've been waiting for a reliable source to state that he's been signed (maybe the FSC broadcast would be good enough) so that we can remove it. Until it's announced via a reliable source, I was just going to keep it in line with the club site. I typically assume that an IP editor has not read the discussion about it (in this case he/she didn't even remove the comment begging to read the discussion before changing). I can't tell from your comment whether you think we should remove it or not. If you think it should be removed, I'm okay with that actually. I just don't want IP editors to use Wikipedia as a rumormill (they have in the past). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little balance please

Hello George. I must admit to being puzzled by your last revisions to my edits. The article cites long, prominent quotations that highlight alleged IDF shortcomings and magnify the alleged skill of Hezbollah guerillas. Yet you didn’t butcher these quotes as you did mine. So I’m curious George, what makes these quotes, left unmolested by you, different than the quotes that I cited? --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George, please don't talk to me about bias. When I first came across this Wiki article, I thought I was reading recruitment propaganda for Hezbollah. As far as your revisions to my edits are concerned, I found them to be poorly written with numerous gramatical as well as spelling errors which necessitated correction. I can deal with some of your revisions in the interest of conciliation. However, others I simply will not tolerate. In the future, have some decency and before making revisions come to my talk page and we can discuss it. Who knows? Maybe you can convince me or I can convince you. In any event, we're both rational people who can come to compromise.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello George. Sorry for coming off a bit rash. I hope that my edits and your revisions to them enable the wiki reader to have a better and more balanced view of the conflict. Have a good weekend.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, George. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lebanon#Proposal_for_decoration_.28barnstar.29_for_WP:LEB.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stalemate on MaD

The previous dicussion was getting long to openso I've started a new subsection. I've reinserted some stuff since I wasn't that happy with the errors that sat on the page for a while now (since SlimVirgin made her edit) but we could, for the sake of argument, move it back to the long standing version prior to that edit and then discuss my suggested changes. Feel free to elaborate on your concerns on the new section.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo George,

I opened up a new section so that it will be easy to go over the arguments. You've recently made a number of comments that are a bit broken up into differnt locations which makes for a difficult follow up on your question/points and tomake a cohesive and easyto follow reply. Would you mind reworking these questions into the structure of the conversation please?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaakobou: -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking/service

Hello, George. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lebanon.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eli + 20:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Apologies for taking an "immediate" type of measure rather than first taking it to the talk page, but I felt that removing the second BBC source, on top of the error inserted intot he text with the second name of the documentary were a bit much. I also wasn't exactly happy withthe rephrase... I thinkyou did make some good try thereand hope that wecanadopt a rephrase there, just that I'm maybe a tad protective considering the recent "loony" develpments that I'mnowconsidering on howto handle in a delicate but still productive for the project way. I will accept a rewrite, but lets try onthe talk page and fix the minor errors there first. Still friends? :) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo George,

I got a few hectic days so I'll be a little "off". I might miss a thing or two and might bug you a little later with them. Will try not to get it to annoying levels :)

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo 2,

I've recently noticed that Landes tries to elaborate on 5 possible versions for the MaD case. I didn't want to place the link on the talk since its already hard to follow but there might be good "summary"-style content there (there's more links on the left side menu... I actually didn't click on them).

Laterz, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail

Hi George - please check your e-mail! -- ChrisO (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a review

Hi George, I'm thinking of nominating 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla as a featured article candidate, and have posted it on peer review, here, for some pre-nomination feedback. I've been impressed by the careful approach you've been taking to the al-Durrah article, so I was wondering if you'd be willing to post feedback on the Lydda one. If you don't have time or inclination, however, I'll completely understood, as I know reviewing can be a bit of a pain, so please feel free to ignore this request. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

FYI, I think your suggestion that I be banned from that article is quite unjustifiable. The outlier here is Jaakobou - my idea of reliable sourcing is no different to yours, SlimVirgin's or what is required by policy. You've agreed with my comments about sourcing on the article talk page; I've agreed with your ideas about developing the lead, and have provided you with additional sourcing to help you develop it further. Please see my followup comments and reconsider what you've written. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canaan link

I would like you to know that since the Canaan anime aired in July 2009, there has been a spike in page views for the "Canaan" wiki page if you check the page statistics, as well as an overall increase on google search for "Canaan." In fact, it has more page views than the other redirect link called "Canaanites" so if anything, the Canaan anime wiki link is more relevant in terms of user searching.

Canaan Statistics:

[3] - June 2009, 34081 views

[4] - July 2009, 86033 views, spike in views

[5] - July 2009, 73159 views, Canaan anime

[6] - August 2009, 56942 views, and I believe most of this traffic came from people wanting to search for Canaan anime seeing as it used to hover around 30000 views.

[7] - August 2009, 41253, Canaan anime

Canaanism Statistics:

[8] - June 2009, Canaanism has 22 views

[9] - July 2009, Canaanism has 12 views

[10] - August 2009, Canaanism has 590 views, a spike which no doubt has to do with the Canaan anime airing unless you have another explanation for the 4900% increase in views in just one month which coincidentally is the month after a popular anime aired.

So yes, the Canaan anime link is more notable than the others. It is the most viewed link in Canaan_(disambiguation).

You can check the other "Canaan" links and check the statistics. None of the pages have views that even come close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolxal (talk • contribs) 08:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

2inta akid aouni

If u cared about lebaon's article the LEAST you could've done is rephrase the small passage about lebanon's economy, since you are SO CONCERNED about copyright violations REPHRASE THE PASSaGE or at least add some economic info from BEYOND 2006!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP VANDALISING THE ARTICLE under the lame and FALSE pretext of copyright violations. The economic damage from the ANCIENT 2006 war has no place in the begining of the article about lebanon instead you should focus on the economic gains from THE NEW 2008-2009 financial crisis.!!!!!!!! Also i practically wrote the article about lebanon's economy, before i edited it ( i don't mean the latest edite ) it talked about the state of economy in the 1990s, so think again before u threaten to ban me. If u are aounist then there is no point in arguing with you so i've decided to remove the edit from the lebaon's economy article and the damage from the 2006 war from the introduction of lebanon article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.61.4 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

1982 Lebanon War

Where do I put the trivia piece about Al Tadliku Li Ner? It's certainly citable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheled Umlal (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1982 Lebanon War

It already is. I just thought because HaClique were big in Israel (at that time), it would warrant a part in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheled Umlal (talk • contribs) 12:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Have one of these

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For being especially bold and creating the Seattle Sounders FC task force. I look forward to working with you and others on this task force dedicated to organizing and improving information about Seattle Sounders FC. SkotyWA^Talk\|_Contribs 00:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

You're invited to leave your feed back here.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Thanks for grabbing all of those typos. I have a habit of stuffing stuff in and if I am on a machine without spell check I botch it up (assuming most of those errors were mine). Nice work!Cptnono (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Left Movement (Lebanon)

Hiya. I did some more editing to the Democratic Left Movement (Lebanon) article and would like it to reach A Class (it is currently at GA). This requires the support of two uninvolved editors; I was wondering if you could review the article and give your input. Thanks so much, Mnation2 (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qwest FAC

Would you mind providing a Support, Oppose, or Fixes needed at the FAC? Thanks also for those ref fixes. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Qwest Field/archive1 Cptnono (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George

This recent gem [11] was left the the Lebanon War discussion page. Can action be taken against this user? Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounders FC up for FA review

FYI... the peer review finally ended so I've nominated it for FA review. It's been a pleasure working with you on the article and I look forward to working together toward a successful FA review. Thanks! --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 17:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They recently started the FA review over because they said it was turning into an extented peer-review (which I don't disagree with). It would be great if you could again voice your support/oppose/comments again on the newly restarted FA-review. Thanks! --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 17:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what do you think?

Lebanese wikipedians on Facebook this could be a good thing Eli + 13:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese diaspora

Marhaba George, The infobox in Lebanese people, makes absolutely no sense. What does this mean exactly:

Ethnic Lebanese

3,971,941 in Lebanon

ethnic-Lebanese in Lebanon are unknown

Also, I added a citation tag to the diaspora numbers, because blogs (this was the source used) are not really RS. And also because I saw this academic paper which mentions a number between 4-6 millions. I'm not gonna change it, I don't feel like getting into an argument with anyone, but I just thought you might want to know. Best, Yazan (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey George

First I'd like to wish you a blessed Christmas and second i'd like to have your opinion in something far from the holidays spirit.. I came across an issue and i need your guidance; an unregistered user has been blanking sections on some Lebanon related articles and was blocked following a number of warnings, the block includes account creation, yet this person managed to create this account and has made what seem to me like an attack on a veteran editor (here), which was later erased. I'm concerned that this petty bickering may not stop here, is there no way to notify administrators that this user managed to bypass or outpace the block? I'd be more than happy to see him/her thrown out. Eli + 19:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks mate ;) Eli + 18:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Re: [12] Thanks for the bling and thanks for your help in getting Seattle Sounders FC to FA status. --SkotyWA^T|_C 06:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono (talk) has given you a toast with champagne, for your coordination of the new Sounders task force. Here's to the first featured article! You see, these things somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a toast with champagne! Enjoy!

Spread the goodness of with champagne by adding {{subst:BlankWikiLove|border=#1047AB|bg=#5D9731|image=Murganheira.jpg|article=a toast|item=with champagne }} to their talk page with a friendly message.