User talk:George/Archives/2008

Hello

I think I'm supposed to "leave you a new message." Basketball110 :) 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon

i disagree the flag of LEBANON the anthem of LEBANON the symbol of LEBANON (the cedar) the currency of LEBANON ARE matters of top importance in the LEBANON wp... you are underrating !!!! you always do... that is when you remember to contribute..Elie plus (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW History and patrimony happen to be matters of top importance too...12:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• ok u convinced me... i did not read the reqs, i'm ok if u wanna change the national museum's rating but not the othersElie plus (talk)
• Oh...i was wondering... i'm sure few know about ... let's say the Phoenician alphabet, better yet many readers do not know who the Phoenicians were... then why is Phoenician alphabet so highly rated in the WikiProject Writing systems??? can you explain?

the way i see it, rating should not come from whether a reader knows about a certain subject or not... it's all about how relevant the article is in a certain wikiproject... the best example : cedar & Lebanon. plz reply Elie plus (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• and one more thing, i consider the importance scaling nothing but a tool to determine the priority in which the articles should be classified in order to be improved and updated... for example Beirut is an article of top importance, it should be regularly updated and it needs particular attention...Elie plus (talk)

Youssef Karam: Scale of importance

Dear George, I really admire your patience and dedication. A big thank you from all Lebanese Wikipedians. For the importance of the stub on Youssef Karam, I do not agree on the mid-importance. I just wrote a note in the discussion page of the article explaining the reasons for an upgrade. I will leave to the reviewers to decide. Anyway, the stub needs urgent expansion by all means. youcroft (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Please leave a comment on my page at:

Hello George, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ShepBot (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

User:Alex&Kyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex&kyle (talk • contribs) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Welcome!

Hello, George/Archives, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

War article

Just added it. I forget sometimes. It happens =). --Shamir1 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but the rep did say he was speaking from the report. I didnt know if a longer intro would really be necessary. --Shamir1 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Werdnabot

Hello, George. I noticed that you archive your discussion page using Werdnabt. What is this, and how can I use it, too? Screen stalker (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War

Which image is better in the infobox - Image:Tyre air strike.jpg or Image:2006crisis lebanon israel.png? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your AFD

Hey George, I recently noticed that you tried to add an AFD of Gabriel Al-Amin to the AFD log, however. You are not using the correct template, you are using the {{prod}} template which is another method of deletion but if you would like to create a subpage on AFD for your article you will need to use the template {{AFD}} which will then contain further instructions. - Icewedge (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

feedback

The wording of your nomination seems to be POV. That doesn't mean that it's wrong – rather, there is no need to call the subject of the article "a fabrication" or a "hoax" or to call the site that publishes him "right-wing." And such verbiage probably will have no impact on the results anyway. If he's notable, they'll keep him, and if he's non-notable, then he'll be deleted even if you heap liberal praise on him and the web sites that promote him, with only a gentle, passing mention of an absence of scholarly sources (unless you actually withdraw the nom.). Anyway, I think that I'll formally vote tomorrow, maybe. Thanks for considering my thoughts. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War

Hi George, thanks for your edits, I know they were made in good faith. I have to make a partial revert, for the statement is in fact supported by the citations. HRW does not support Israel's attacks on such targets, the cited scholar discusses the legality of targeting such civilian installations (saying in this case, it could be legal), and naturally the IDF considers them legitimate targets.

A somewhat different issue I have is the making of this article (and this section in particular) a collection of the stances of special interest groups (AI and HRW are in fact, special interest groups). I fully support using their research, but I think the article should read more like what a news article would say rather than this. Get my gist? Thanks.

--Shamir1 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Boukaert quote is based on the study and explains their apparent position better. I dont see why two would be needed or what idea is lost with this new edit

I don't care about either expansion of the quotation, I left both out 1) because they're pretty much already covered, and 2) moreover, because I think plain facts are the most important. The opinions of NGOs does not need to be the most detailed as opposed to the dry facts they obtain. I just didnt see why that little phrase should be left out when the rest is in.

Once again, it's sourced. HRW says: "Human Rights Watch research shows that the IDF struck a large number of private homes of civilian Hezbollah members during the war, as well as various civilian Hezbollah-run institutions such as schools, welfare agencies, banks, shops and political offices."

I didnt go into various positions or interpretations of the laws of war. I kept it brief and just attached the citations.

Check the Amnesty International article, then check its "type" in the infobox. Don't get me wrong, I fully support using their research. --Shamir1 (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Human Rights Watch research shows that the IDF struck a large number of private homes of civilian Hezbollah members during the war, as well as various civilian Hezbollah-run institutions such as schools, welfare agencies, banks, shops and political offices."

This is a completely different statement than the one that was inserted into the article, "A large number of the private homes and civilian institutions struck in Lebanon were affiliated with or run by Hezbollah". I wouldn't say that 'Hezbollah struck a large number of private homes affiliated with or run by the IDF' just because many Israeli civilians serve in the IDF at some point in their life.

I don't see at all your point or how the sentence makes a different statement. The civilians of some of the private homes (as their research) says are affiliated with Hezbollah. It doesnt say they used to be or they could be or whatever else you are suggesting in your analogy. It says they are members. Then it mentions civilian institutions run by Hezbollah. That's it. Doesnt seem different to me. --Shamir1 (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A private home sounds pretty civilian. It is is true that Hezbollah is made up of a political party and a militia, although it is disputed whether they are two different entities. The biggest difference is that the HRW quote is talking about civilian Hezbollah members and civilian Hezbollah-run institutions. The only wording I "chose" was just simpler. I can change it based on your concerns. --Shamir1 (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The only concern I have is with the idea of a civilian Hezbollah member, which may not be shared with Israel, or the U.S. and the Netherlands, who say that all arms of Hezbollah are from a single coordinating council and that membership to the group is membership to a terrorist organization. Still, they are private homes and civilian institutions that are found by HRW to be affilaited with Hezbollah only politically, not militarily. I added this to the article. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I only attempted for neutral language that wouldnt infer anything on either side. Did I add that Gabriel Al-Amin stuff? I didnt mean to. I also forgot to remove the "when the war broke out" part, I was merely writing off the top of my head when I wrote that and remembered it that way (not that its a big deal but I understand you.) I am afraid of it being a revert if I remove those things. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Hezbollah and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hey George, somebody blanked large portions of reference text on Lebanon i think its Maha. I'll try to fix what i can , plz check if there are any other deleted ref's Eli+ 21:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry i see you already reverted the reference removal too Eli+ 21:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon

Hello. It was moved per the parent category for sport in Lebanon and the continental Sport in Asia template. Generally the "sports" exception was forced by users from the US who use this form. Almost all countries on WP use "sport" form then. -- Darwinek (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess its friendly ties with the US or it just use the name given by the initial author. - Darwinek (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to 2008 conflict in Lebanon

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2008 conflict in Lebanon. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.GreenEcho (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2008 conflict in Lebanon, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.GreenEcho (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Progressive Socialist Party

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Progressive Socialist Party. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.GreenEcho (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:

First of all, think twice before threatening me. You are the one in violation of Wikipedia policies. Stop imposing your POV on the articles and stop showing disregard for sources provided. GreenEcho (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for unblock (expired)

{{unblock|First, I'd like to inquire which article I was blocked for. I reverted edits to Progressive Socialist Party three times, and I reverted edits to 2008 conflict in Lebanon three times, both of which fall below the threshold of "more than three reverts (to a single article)... within a 24 hour period," so this appears to be an erroneous block prima facie. Additionally, three of those edits involved extreme claims about the biographical information of a living person, which are afforded extra protections under WP:BLP. Second, I would point out that I have started discussions on the talk pages for both of these articles,[1][2] inviting the other editor to join in a discussion to resolve our disputes, both of which have (still) been ignored. Third, I would point out that I explicitly invited the other editor to join the discussion in both my edit summaries on both articles, as well as on their talk page,[3] all of which have been ignored. Fourth, I would like to point out that I had moved to have both articles fully protected as an incentive to get the other user to join in the dispute resolution process and avoid edit warring, but they instead continued to revert. Lastly, per WP:V, I have been attempting to maintain the status quo of the articles until sufficient discussion takes place, and sufficiently reliable sources are cited, as "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."}}

Your comments

• I made no attempt to communicate with you because I did not feel that my input was required. I block on a regular basis, usually those reported at AIV, but the result is the same: I watchlist every talk page of every user I have blocked, so of course I saw your request.
• You'll note in the block log that I blocked for edit warring. Three consecutive reverts on two pages in 24 hours. I blocked for 3RR because I noticed four reverts on one page, but I made a mistake; the first of four was not in the 24-hour period. I should have blocked the other user for the same disruption, but I didn't; bad judgement on my part? Perhaps. If so, I apologise for that.
• Even though I should have blocked the other editor, for the same reason, you were still edit warring on two pages. I do apologise for misjudging the number of reverts, but edit warring is still a blockable offence. Both of you behaved with poor judgement when reverting; it was a content dispute, and therefore does not qualify for exemption.
• Full protection is only used when a group of editors on both sides are involved in an edit war. Two editors reverting is not a reason to fully protect a page. Any administrator can tell you that, and any administrator would likely have declined that request. It's very much a last resort in the face of severe and multiple counts of disruption.
• I am sorry you think I failed in my duty as an administrator, but I respectfully disagree. I was merely waiting for an outside administrator to judge the situation, as I do with all my blocks. Perhaps I did exercise bad judgement in a number of areas, but I am a human; I am merely a volunteer; and I do have a life off-Wiki which leaves Wikipedia as in second place. This is no excuse, but my judgement has rarely been questioned in this way.

I hope this explanation is sufficient for you. I do sincerely apologise if you are not satisfied; but I feel the block was correct in this case. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your advice. I do try and be the best editor an admin as possible, and I've never had my judgement called into question like this, so I will revise how do things and change them if necessary. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

God work on Skiing in Lebanon

Congratulations for the good work on Skiing in Lebanon. Please, keep it on! --Damiens.rf 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:ANI regarding GreenEcho

thanks for notifying me George, I hope the issue would be solved soon. Hiram111 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I have everything organized. I did start changing the infoboxes but everything is now categorized correctly. I have it neatly organized by governorate and I am setting up a district structure as the settlements by district was too generic. Trust me on this I haven't notched up 170 k edits and not learned a thing or two! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes the infoboxes are fine, although the standard is practically the same but has more options for devleopment at a later date. I had begun switching infoboxes to sort out the categories and get a strong category structure, unbelievably we didn't have gneerla governorate categories!! Basically its organize dby governorate division now and then the district cats are for general articles which may include setltements or physical features etc. I'll check out to see if I missed any categories when I changed those infoboxes. ~~I hope you can see the idea behind the categories to be consistent and in coordination with cities on wikipedia ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well depending on how many places in a given country. I've started work on Bangladesh and as it has 27,000 settlements it makes perfect sense to categorize places not only by region but by district. E.g see Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Barisal Division, However with Lebanon there only appeats to be around 3,000 -4,000 places in the country, possibly more but thats what it seems over the web. If so divinding by five roughly 600 articles on average if we have every settlement on here. As it stands I think just by region is fine, I;ve also created sub categories for Category:Districts of Lebanon. ON average there ere only five or size in each original district category. If at a later date the regional categories end up with 1000 odd places in them, then I would fully support recreating the district cats at a later date. Best regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the infobox Lebanon infoboxes were probably the best I've seen for national inofboxes. Some of them like the Pakistan infoboxes are awful things. I'm all for standardizing everything but the Lebanon boxes are good as they include the pin map etc. As articles develop I would suggest you switch to standard if further or blank paramters are needed. I hate to tread on peoples toes or offend anyway by what I do, I am keen to avoid a major confrontation and try to do it as quietly as possible. When I have a moment I'll see if I can find some referenced population figures which many of the cities ar emissing and try to clean up some of them. Best ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going back through the ones I switched boxes for now and adding the district categories. So eahc articles should go in the governorate city category and the gneeral district category. Hopefully other articles can go in the district categories too landmarks, rivers, mountains etc. If I miss any please prompt me!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know its not easy knowing. Basically I would judge it by how many articles we have on here now and if it is manageable by governorate or not (which at present it is). If we eventually have several hundred articles in each category or the new general district categories become full I would fully support splitting again by district if it amounts. Unfortunately the coverage on here is far from even and we have countless hamlets in America on here and only 20 or so articles on a region as huge as Beqaa!!!! My main goal on here is to try to counteract the American bias and cover the world more evenly! Nice to meet you BTW. If you or WP:Lebanon want help with any articles I will always try to remain open to help out if I have a spare moment. One thing I've noticed is that the general governorate articles are still stubs!!! which is basically like an articles on Virginia in the US still being a stub. That is pretty important to devleop I think. My God Father comes from Lebanon, although admittedly I know far too little about the country!!!. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately accessing the info in the web is part of the information revolution that wiki is central to isn't it. 95% of Africa is poorly covered and much of Latin America and much of mainland asia. With many countries like Afghanistan, Burma, China etc to name just a few we face severe obtructions to gaining access to info because of political and economic reasons. Its only a matter of time I think before information gradually becomes available on line in the native language or in english for many countries, even the poorer ones the elite in them are gradually getitng online access. I've seen some promising developments almost on a weekly basis so I remain assured that eventually we'll get more people contributing and ading information on here from their own countries. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What I'd propose you do with Lebanon is to create a series of district templates sort of like I've done with Wikipedia:WikiProject Burkina Faso/Provincial templates. I'll se eif I can built some templates to connect articles and topics related to each district, We should be able to red link a few too so this would provide a framework to increase and improve coverage by district of the country. E.g main towns and villages, notable landmarks, gep features, transport, culture, notable people etc. I'll finish the cats tomorrow if this is OK and see if I can draw up some Lebanon district template bones at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/District templates. Adios ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi George. I've created the template outlines and add to some such as Template:Aley District and Template:Zgharta District. I'll need your help in filling the new templates with towns and villages and notable content (evne if red linked) and then to distribute them to the relative articles so we get a more organised coverage by district. Let me know if the template and the "bones" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/District templates. are OK. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also kitted out the districts like Akkar District etc with new infoboxes and location maps and data taken from dutch wiki. Hope it is OK ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Druze

The issue at hand on Druze is that GreenEcho (formerly an IP addy mentioned in talk) insists that his cites are the only appropriate ones and repeatedly reverted the page. I asked for protection from non-registered users because it appeared to be abuse, and an editor decided to simply lock the whole page.

Now the situation has not been resolved, and the page cannot be unlocked for editing without further conversation. GreenEcho will not converse, and merely repeats ad nauseum his citations (Esposito, Nissan) that al-Hakim is God to the Druze etc. I wanted to get the conversation rolling again, but he has taken a dislike to me and is actually following my edits on other pages to edit war with me. It's most disturbing and aggravating. I don't know how to have a discussion with someone who won't listen. em zilch (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and his talk page is stuffed with warnings and the like. Plus he's stalked me to at least one other page. em zilch (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

Actually, I've never edited the 2006 Lebanon War article; amazing, really, considering it has almost 18,000 edits. But I'd be happy to help out. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding templates

Hi George. Sorry I can't devote all my time to Lebanon but could you make a note to gradually develop to tmeplates I created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/District templates and with some of the others add them to the articles to connect articles by district. I think all they need is to add the settlements to and any notable articles linked within each one ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the Template:Zgharta District is also another example of the sort of things that can be added. anything that is notable may include notable companies, places of worship, anything you think appropriate., yes that is also the idea other than connecting them together, it identifes what is missing from each district as one and encourages other editors to write them and therefore expand our coverage. I'll try to develop some of them but admittedly I'm feeling a bit burned out at present. I took on Pakistan, Malaysia and South Africa after Lebanon and that with my other work on film etc has left me feeling whacked!! There is so much possibility for improvement on here it is mind boggling!! I think I'll take chill pill for a few days to recover and be lazy! Best regards and I appreciate if you could "mother" and "nurture" those templates along with the other members of the project (when you have a spare moment of course) ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent find and idea!! Yes I've noticed the transliterations from Arabic are often a nightmare!! When I was working on Libya the variation in names and spellings was ridiculous there was twenty odd different forms on some of them!! Often of course this ends up with duplicate articles. Yes that would be great to add them all to the templates. I wonder if there is an online source which has population data and basic socio economic info. Either way I think it is a good progession. Adios, I'll try to help out in a few days when I've recovered! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Proper English

Hi George. I am not saying that he is a leader of Hezbollah. However, the initial edit changing his status from 'leader' to 'member' of Hezbollah seemed to be based on a misunderstand by the editor of the definition of the word 'leader.' It seemed that the edit was made because Fneish is not 'the' leader of Hezbollah (Nasrallah is). However, the intention here was not 'the' leader of Hezbollah, but 'a' leader of Hezbollah. And I am quite sure that someone who has been a government minister on behalf of Hezbollah can be seen as one of its leaders; he is definitely not a simple peasant guarding the Israeli border. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I might be more experienced than you think. Also, please note that I have been active on several different wiki-projects for about 3 years already. I am not quite new to Wikipedia. And there definitely is a guideline requesting editors not to paste templates on the talk pages of experienced users, since that only causes more problems. I know the rules, you don't have to 'remind' me of the rules with a silly template. You can approach me on a more personal note. In any case, no insult or personal attack was intended here. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vigilance

Sir: Thanks for the vigilance. Please note that Abdel Salam Haikal is the youngest person ever to receive the honor of being elected to the AUB board. I met him in Beirut two weeks ago, and he was telling me great ideas that made me realise what made him rise so quicky. He shared with me later his articles. Please send me your email to forward them to you. I'm new to Wikipedia and all help you could offer to usher me in would be appreciated. As a retired journalist, I'm hoping to leave a lasting impression in this sphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn56 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"in Lebanon" vs. "Lebanese"

Dear George, Please understand the change I made was made in good faith whether it was a good or poor choice of phrasing. My change of "Criticism of the celebrations in Lebanon as repulsive and uncivilized were ubiquitous in the U.S. and other Western media," to Lebanese celebrations was to avoid confusion with the idea that the criticism of the celebrations were from Lebanon... Please also understand that the the Reactions section is under further expansion. I am to add Arab newspapers, British, and German. --Shamir1 (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Druze

George, I'm having the problems with GreenEcho on Druze and now on Al-Hakim. He won't talk, he won't respond, he merely reverts. I've suggested versions with talking points from both sides - he reverts. Any suggestions? It's really really aggravating. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 17:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Druze is still locked from edits and I have no idea what to do. It's a real breakdown in wikipedia processes IMHO, as one user is able to control an entire page simply by refusing to discuss the issue. There is a lot of work to do on Druze and we should be able as editors to find a solution to this problem that enables us to edit the darn page... Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 10:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I guess you're going to go with the Cabal, so it's probably best if I step back. Sorry I wasn't able to get it resolved. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was him. I've created the sock category, and soft-protected the articles he was edit-warring on for two weeks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon

I have attempted to clear up the situation on the Lebanon discussion page. I hope you will understand my reasons for changing the intro which I believe are fully explained at Lebanon Talk. Please, I am interested in your opinion. --AreaControl (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Hello. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to John Poindexter, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Thank you. -- RyRy (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, whoops. Wrong George. Never mind that. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. -- RyRy (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

GreenEcho/Klaksonn sockpuppetry continues

Hi, the IP address 77.42.134.185 appears to have picked up where the banned sockpuppet GreenEcho/Klaksonn left off, trying to start edit wars.[4] They had been blocked indefinitely (note the almost identical IP addresses). What's the best course of action here? Would it be possible for you to block this IP address as well? Thanks. ← George ^[talk] 01:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Another IP related to the above seems to have popped up: 218.213.226.210. Regards, ITAQALLAH 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

He's back again as User:Monkaa... called me a "cunt", and appears to be wikistalking me now. He's just revert warring all over the place... reverting my edits, your reverts of his edits, and reverting another admins', Jayjg's, edits. I don't suppose that we can just get a site ban on 72.42.*.*? ← George ^[talk] 11:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi George. The account has just been blocked indefinitely for block evasion. I've ust run a CU myself and I can confirm it. Feel free to revert all the edits made by this account. However, for the time being, I cannot range block. We are keeping an eye for now until it becomes a real problem. -- -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 15:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that 12.96.191.189-191 are also being used by the same sock puppeteer. though they might be meatpuppets. anyhow they engage in similar disruptive editing. MiS-Saath (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Now our friend from 77.42.* moved on to Bandar Bin Sultan. Should protection be requested for that article as well? is there anything else that can be done against this vandal? MiS-Saath (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Samir Kuntar the baby murderer

If you want to discuss the terror term related to the article there, follow the discussion page there: Talk:Samir_Kuntar#Samir_is_a_terrorist_and_it_should_stand_clearly_in_the_article. PLF Palestine Liberation Front, Samir, and Binladen are designated as terrorists according to WP, see links, read content and join the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by On.Elpeleg (talk • contribs) 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Hey why hasn't anybody filled in any of my district templates? The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)