User talk:George/Archives/2010

van Creveld & other stuff

Hi George, I concur with your reverts of Kassjab's recent edits. Concerning van Creveld, I believe he's got dual Dutch and Israeli citizenship. So to classify him exclusively as an "Israeli military historian" is technically inaccurate. However, if you feel otherwise, I won't challange. I still would like to see his commentary somewhere in the Lebanon war article, perhaps in the "reactions to conflict" section (Either Israeli or international reaction). He is a respected military historian with, I believe, 22 or so books on warfare under his belt so his opinion should hold some sway. But I won't take action unlilaterally. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi George. After mulling it over for a while, I thought it wise to add van Creveld's commentary under "Reactions in Israel" section. He's a respected figure and the additional content adds rather than detracts from the article. Hope you agree. Warmest regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Thanks for your comments there. They were very helpful. Yes, these things can take quite a few weeks. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for fun

I saw your edit summary here. WP:ALLCAPS addresses this so if you ever come across it again you have something to point to. And if you haven't seen it yet, Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia is awesome (even though you are the one that showed my error with numbers!) Cptnono (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

George, thank you for the barnstar and the kind words. I want to thank you in return for your help with the article. From the first time I saw your name on the talk page, I was grateful for your common sense and insights, as I was for your comments and support during the FAC. It was quite an experience! Not sure I'd want to go through it again too soon, at least not with a contentious article, but I'm glad we got this one done. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 2009 U.S. Open Cup Final

On February 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 U.S. Open Cup Final, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

al-Durrah sentence

Hi George, in case you miss it on the talk page, would this sentence work, in your view: "For sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, it amounted to a modern blood libel—the ancient allegation that Jews sacrifice other people's children." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, George, I'll take a look at it tomorrow and try to come up with something that fits your suggestions—and thanks for the input. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox City Lebanon

Template:Infobox City Lebanon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

al-Durrah

Hi George, FYI, I've requested ArbCom enforcement against NickCT and Soledad22; see here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Souter

LOL. I just put that over at the Sounders FC forum. It looks like they have dibbs on him by getting his rights but he has not been signed yet. I also am not positive. It will get coverage if it happens. Montano has already received some attention from Times just for being close so it should be easy enough to inclde when the time comes.Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Check out this from a few weeks ago. It looks like there are 24 slots including developmental players. I assume the rights thing is staking a potential claim and prevents other clubs swoop in while the guy is undergoing trials.Cptnono (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tag in lede

Re "His multi-tagging of the article's lead is inappropriate" - Out of curiousity why? My reading of Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Disputes_over_tags made it seem appropriate. No one has yet to explain to me thier reasoning behind why tagging the lede was wrong. Not slim, not malik, not modernist. They all seem to revert without explination or discussion.

On another note, I believe reading through the whole of the Al-Durrah talk page would make obvious that SlimVirgin's request was made in bad faith to smite dissent, so obviously I disagree with the general tone of your comment. However, I recognize and respect that your opinion was offered in good faith and in an honest fashion. NickCT (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Re your response. Thanks for the link. I seems like we have two relevant sections dealing with this issue

From Wikipedia:TAGBOMB

"Tag bombing is the addition of multiple tags to an article or adding one tag to multiple articles. Adding tags to articles should be accompanied by detailed reasoning on the tagged article's talk page to explain why the tags are needed. Although requiring users to offer reasoning on the talk page for every tag they add is a form of instruction creep, requiring that they at least think about each tag can help cut down on the use of redundant or inapplicable tags."

From Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Disputes_over_tags

Tags such as ((npov)) often merely indicate the existence of a dispute without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree.

Frankly, I think deciding whether my tagging was infact "bombing" or simply good faith tagging to indicate debate (as called for by Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems is very POV.

Out of curiousity, when you said I was "over-tagging" was that because I double tagged the two sentences, instead of using just one tag? I actually did this to try and be NPOV. To demonstrate I objected to the language expressing opinions from both sides of the debate, and not just one. Is your position that it more appropriate were there just one tag, or that there should have been no tags at all? NickCT (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok George. Your views are appreciated. Edit warring is not smart I'd agree. But I was provoked into it, when my tags were removed without explination (explination which I asked for several times). I sincerely believe that "It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not" justifies the tags prescence. Why then wasn't I offered an explination when my tags were removed? NickCT (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey George, I know SlimV said "stop this, please; it is being discussed", but we were discussing the NPOV issue not the tags. Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Disputes_over_tags specificly says that if sentences are under discussion for NPOV they can be tagged. SlimV never gave her opinion as to why TAGGING was wrong. She simply reverted without explination.

Discussion unfortunately is not leading to a positive result. I am trying to get more eyes involved now as I think this demonstrates. While we get "more eyes" I think NPOV tag is appropriate. It would certainly help more eyes get more eyes involved. NickCT (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey George, thanks for the comments. Two quick points. 1) re "did you take a survey", you may notice that's what I'm trying to do here, and I think I've demonstrated a lack of consensus. 2) I think the crux of this argument may be the article's FA status. I definetily take your point that for FA's the metaphorical "bar" should be a little higher regarding tagging, however, you must concede that FA articles aren't necessarily with NPOV issues? I'm not 100% on what goes into make FAs, but I doubt that reviewers read and sign of on the neutrality of every sentence.

Regardless, I don't think we're going to come to consensus on this, but I do value your input and guideance. NickCT (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Flow

Yes, go ahead, good idea. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if there's anything you want me to see urgently, and that I need to respond to, feel free to ping me on my talk page. There are so many posts on that discussion page now that it's becoming awkward to negotiate, so if I don't respond to any of your posts it's likely I just haven't seen them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

More "keeping busy" than really busy. There's only so much al-Durrah I can take, I'm afraid. :/ SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cup Final peer review

Saw your edits on the Cup Final article. Very good improvements. Thanks for reading through the article and doing the touch ups.

One question while it's still fresh in your mind... As someone familiar with the events, can you think of anything that's beeing overlooked or left out? Given that this is now a "historic event" it won't get the same attention that the club article gets, so it's up to us to make sure that it represents complete coverage. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The bit on Forrest was the only thing I could find that said anything about how they split up the money. If you come accross anything else, please add it. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation response

Dear George, I have read your request and soon will make some additions. Before I do, I need to ask something of you, which is to WP:assume good faith. I don't know if you were being sincerely concerned or trying to stifle opposition to your changes, but regardless of the motives it got way out of hand. Your responses to my concerns of content were almost personal. Sometimes it was inferred I was suggesting things which I felt I clearly did not say--making our differences seem extreme when they may be much closer. Trivial issues were dragged on. An unfounded conflict of interest case was quickly dismissed, and even if I accept responsibility, constantly attempting to arouse suspicions of me to other editors is unjustified, irrelevant, and unfair. Doing so can be seen as being a dick. I don't want this to happen. I just want us to be more sensitive to our concerns. I don't want to stigmatize each other. If we are to engage in civil dialogue, then I kindly ask you to set aside any existing grudges and assume good faith. Peace. --Shamir1 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In regards to our dispute about the lead, neither of us is opposed to a brief description of the founder. This is more tied to the repetition and comparison to AIPAC. Take a look at my suggested edit where I discuss "where it already is." In regards to the content of the other sentence (#4), it does not come from a neutral source. The commentator is Joel Beinin. It also incorrectly describes AIPAC's activities. They never have directed or coordinated campaign contributions. They do not endorse candidates either. If you wish to further dispute this I will leave it as an issue.

When it comes to the W&M's article, I will change the word "criticism" to reflect your opinion. --Shamir1 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear George, Are you ready for mediation? Please accept or let me know if you have any reservations. Thanks. --Shamir1 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The part of the sentence repeated twice, which I very clearly note in talk and in my suggested edit, is the part about "partisan image." I do not believe the juxtaposition is fit for an incyclopedia; it seems nuanced. As I noted it is potentially flawed, since AIPAC neither coordinates nor directs campaign contributions. If you wish to further dispute this, I will leave it as such.

Is anyone seriously proposing that W&M be mentioned twice?

--Shamir1 (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I've made the appropriate adjustments to the request. Are you ready to go ahead? --Shamir1 (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I replied to some of your points here. Thanks NickCT (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied again! NickCT (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Drama argh

How dare someone give you a hard time over at that noticeboard? Not a big fan of Factsontheground but the whole I-P are turns me into an idiot so what do I know. Hope you are going to the game tomorrow. We still need an image of Sigi in the correct scarf!Cptnono (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. That is how it started with me. I'm not even Jewish or Arab but got sucked into it.

I am going. Last thing I read is that 13k were sold so you should be able to get in if you make the trip. I know of a few guys who are buying them at the box office and it sounds like people are expecting plenty of day of sales.

Got my season tickets! People are usually not comfortable with it but every match last year had other season ticket holders on Occidental with extras. It is not just Scalpers and scammers out there. Plenty of people bought a handful of tickets then find their sister or buddy or whoever canceling at the last minute. Face value from what I saw too. So you might be able to see some games even if you don't get the tickets early. That is assuming the CBA all works out though.Cptnono (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at this time it looks like. I can't even tell if there is actually silverware, if it can end in a draw, or if it is going to be an ongoing thing. I threw a few lines in at the rivalry page from a recent article, but so far it is pretty vague as to what is going on besides it being for charity and a decent sized deal for some players and fans. There will already be a couple games in and after 2011 with a new Timbers franchise so it being yearly is certainly questionable.Cptnono (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I only nominated Sigi for GA since the request for feedback yielded 0 results, wanted to get some increased scrutiny to see where it was, and another GA would be sweet. Feel free to run with it and do whatever is needed to get it up to FA. Cptnono (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Falafel

Never new about Template:Falafel. It's an awesome idea. And appeals very much to me. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Falafel ;), and for putting the time in to mediate, I appreciate it. Factsontheground (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What a great and appetizing template, I've Falafel shop next to me-on the way to buy sarving of falafel. --Gilisa (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Everybody loves Falafal! :D ← George ^talk 12:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Even I love falafel. Skip the party and hit [1] on 1st before the game.Cptnono (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Shahaf

Hi George, I'm in two minds about it. The article was created [2] by a sockpuppet account of a banned editor associated with CAMERA—an editor who was editing al-Durrah—probably at a time when people were arguing on the al-Durrah page that the Shahaf investigation ought to be downplayed, and that he had no forensic background. So the article (as I recall, but this is a vague recollection) was created to bolster him and his inclusion. Personally I don't see him as notable enough, and I would probably vote delete in an AfD. Against that, I suspect it's the kind of page that people interested in the al-Durrah story (on both sides) are likely to recreate if it's deleted, and that's often an argument that's used in favour of retention. Sorry if this is too vague to be helpful, but basically he's borderline, so it boils down to a judgment call. Perhaps you could nominate it for AfD, and explain in the nom that you're not sure yourself, and you'd appreciate the fresh eyes. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Note

I'd be happy to reply, but rephrase please (see edit summary). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Hi George, thanks for the note about the AfD. As you may or may not know - and my recently tweaked user name may have caused some confusion - ArbCom took it upon themselves a while back to topic ban a bunch of editors, myself included, from I-P issues (then quietly extended to Arab-Israeli issues). As far as I recall, this was because I was an uninvolved (in the real world) editor, who made a couple of reverts when trying to insist on standard international terminology in a few articles, mostly against what it subsequently transpired was quite the sock farm. Anyway, that aside, the Shahaf article falls within that of course so won't get involved. For the record, and for what it's worth, I was always in two minds about whether he is notable enough for a whole article, but was very clear about the issues this page had, and still has. I expressed my views at the time here, and here for example. N-HH talk/edits 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation ques

Dear George,

It appears that you misunderstood some of the discussion. You are asking to include "Should the lead mention that WINEP was founded by AIPAC?" If you noticed in my edit, I write Indyk/AIPAC, and clearly note that this warrants further discussion. Although you include a source, there are no other reliable sources that indicate that. Most sources, including the ones whose reliability you streamline, say Martin Indyk founded the Institute, as does Indyk. That is also the way it had appeared here. The question above mentions that as if it were a matter of fact when the point is that it may be flawed. It may more accurately be, "Was WINEP founded by Martin Indyk or by the AIPAC group?"

Also, I am not sure where you are going with the rest of the questions. Most of them just say your changes and do not mention the alternative (i.e., other suggestions or concerns). I am not sure what it accomplishes more effectively from the questions I wrote. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Two things

Hi George, first I'd like to ask you, if I may include you in my DYK nomination?

Second I'd like to let you know that Factsontheground reported me here

right after we have agreed to discuss changes here. :)

which means I could get blocked at any moment now.

So, please do keep that in mind, and if I am not responding your questions please check my talk page. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

done--Mbz1 (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you think?

Hi George, first I would like to thank you for the work you've done on the article and for changing you vote! I would also like to ask your opinion on the matter that bothers me. What do you think about removing facts and your comment about SPI. IMO it does not belong to the article talk page, and I would not like to have it there. It is very painful for me. It was done with the only reason to harass and to hurt me, and it succeeded. Please do help me to remove it from the article's discussion page. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Please respond here. I will check on it myself. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove it. It does not belong to article discussion page. Best, --Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard re Nahum Shahaf

Please note that I have raised the issue of Jaakobou's problematic editing of Nahum Shahaf at the BLP noticeboard, at WP:BLP/N#POV and sourcing problems with Nahum Shahaf, as a possible preliminary to an arbitration enforcement request under the article probation regime currently in force on Israel-Palestine articles. If you have any views on the matter, please feel free to contribute to the BLP/N discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		Barnstar of recovery
		I award you with this barnstar of recovery for your work ob the article Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) during it deletion review --Mbz1 (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I added you as the article'c creator to DYK nomination, but it did not pass.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

March 22

Nice! I was hung over and hoarse the next day. Screamed to much at the match and had too many shots at the Hawk's Nest afterward (gorgeous new bartender there). Apologies for butting in on that talk page especially since my recollection of the template was wrong. I saw it pop up when there was the deletion discussion. I think if some of the claims about his work before the investigation can be verified then it should be good to go. Of course, it looks like the sources are only related to the investigation and it has the potential to be filled with puffery. Tough call on this one. Should be a good season. Maybe not having Jaqua in front of Ljungberg for a couple matches will keep him from getting so frustrated.Cptnono (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not going? Sucks. Eyelander kind of botched it last season so Boss seems just fine to me. International dude will be perfect later in the season when they are banged up from the 2 cups this season. Plenty of $10 games at Starfire.Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

At first I was not looking forward to it at all but then I found out they have a beer garden and a small hill where a bunch of people stand behind the goal. It makes me feel all old school English or something. And it was a nice change of pace from Qwest. And don;t worry about sellouts. They always had an additional 500 released day of at Starfire last year. Girls up front said they did not sell those last few hundred out.Cptnono (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sellouts for Starire that is. You should be able to get into Qwest for under $20 Prices went up to $25 :{. Hit up Occidental and find some season ticket holders with extras. They also might have a similar day of release at the window. I think the cheapest seats are like $10 or $15.Cptnono (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks dude! Cptnono (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh

I just wanted to let you know that I have been unblocked. I'm sorry for all of the conflict over the last year or so, and I hope that I can work more productively with you in the future. All the best. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Book:Seattle Sounders FC

Hi George, thanks for starting the book. I expanded it significantly, but I'm neither a soccer expert, or even heard of SSFC before today, so you might want to take a look at it to make sure I didn't do anything stupid. Also, if you want the book to be read, it would be a good idea to link to it by placing {{Wikipedia-Books|Seattle Sounders FC}} in the see also section of relevant articles (example. other example).

If you need help with anything, try Help:Books, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or just drop me a line. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at AE

Hi George, I am basically agree with your general comment on AE as long as topic bans will be supported by differences for what they were issued for. I am still interested in your comment on Gatoclass, if you would consider to post some at AE. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Re

Don't edit mad! Cptnono (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey I was so pissed I came home before last call! They lost all hope after the first goal. Their shoulders just slumped afterward. Funny and as weird as it is, I almost jumped on pregame since we had extra seats. They got gobbled up by other drunken friends before hand but you didn't miss much. ARGH!Cptnono (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, we were at the North entrance ATM and some guys were getting day of tickets at that entrance so keep it in mind next time. Cptnono (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some good ones around town. I'm way out on the Eastside myself but have season tickets close on the 35 yd line. We yell at the line judges a lot but dude was OK tonight. I missed if the main ref was screwing it up but was a little tanked so I might have been off! I was more disappointed on their work on the wing but that night have been a perspective thing. Officiating wise I was just happy that FLs agroness was minimal. I thought there were a few times he was going to go off and Riley didn't deserve a card from my angle.Cptnono (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of our guys go down way to easy (a problem in many leagues) but they get up quick in front of section 133 since we are jerks (watch the north west line next game). But there were a couple weird calls tonight. You for sure should check out day of. We rolled in a few minutes late and someone was buying tickets. The scalpers behind us were bickering about not being able to sell enough so it looks like there were some available. Oh and true about the lack of finishing. They were getting bottled up on the wing and Montero was playing in the channel during the second half. Nothing worth anything in what would be footballs "red zone". Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate

if you are to stop bringing me up in your comment on AN/I. That I am banned while Vexorg is not proves absolutely nothing, except that administrators never looked at Vexorg's edit history. Who are the judges anyway? The only things (with some rare exceptions) that Vexorg was doing lately, is adding nonsense to the articles and being reverted over, and over, and over again: one article only for example. Of course the user is also reporting me to all administrators talk pages over and over and over again: [3];[4]; [5];[6] and so on, and so on. Do you really believe that CordeliaNaismith, Stellarkid, me, Plot Spoiler;Off2riorob and many others are all wrong about Vexorg, and you are right? As much I am concerned this edit alone should have made the user topic banned on everything that concerns Jews.Yes, it was 3 years ago, but nothing has changed. What Stellar did was not canvasing. He notifued the users, who were mentioned in his AN/I post, which is a proper thing to do. I am sorry, but the only thing that stinks to me are your comments on AN/I. I am not interested in continuing communications with you. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I could provide few new differences of Vexorg attacking me, but I'll be blocked for my ban violation, besides I do not care about Vexorg attacking me. It is Vexorg , and to me it says it all. No, I would not like you to strike anything from your comments, except maybe canvasing accusation of Stellar. As I explained earlier, he contacted only two users, who were mentioned in his post. I would have done the same. Your comments about me hurt me, but I kind of used of being hurt, and of course I am not an angel, and deserve it. Whatever....Now, if you'd like to help the community and me, may I please ask you to consider to propose the full and complete interaction ban between Vexorg and me. We do not edit in the same areas. The project and the community will only benefit from that ban, and me... well I will at least know that the user never will do something like that again. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

But Slellar never notified me either. It was not a great idea to ask Sandstein about the interaction ban. The admin is sick and tired of me (rightly so?), and simply deletes my messahes to him. :( Of course you could not know, so it is not your fault, but maybe take it off his talk page before the admin will see it, and get even angrier with my problema and me than he already is :( As a matter of fact he's so tired of mr that he even does not want to block me anymore :)It is esy to wtite the proposal for Interaction ban. Start a new section in that very AN/I post and write "I propse an interaction ban between Mbz1 and Vexorg. Mbz1 is very hard to work with. She already has 2 interaction and one topic bans in effect. The project and the community will benefit from another ban on her, and Vexorg will loose nothing. The proposal will prohibit the editors to revert each other edits, to communicate in any way, and to mention each other name anywhere." And then vote to support it. That's it. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Washington Institute for Near East Policy. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Translation

Hey, you speak Arabic right? can you translate: "Tell Sader al-Arus" and ad it here? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. Just continuing the conversation here for a moment, so as not to make that page overly long. I think we may be agreeing. But I'm not sure. I agree Sugg and FAIR are two different things. Neither, however, has the indicia of being an RS.

A FAIR Op-ed could be used, however, to reflect a FAIR opinion, as in "FAIR thinks Emerson should not have said x". If it is supported by an RS that Emerson said x.

But if there is not RS support for the fact that Emerson said x, that would not be allowed. The reason is (and this is especially the case with controversial statements, and even more so with statement about a BLP) that we do not have reason to believe (RS support for) that E said x.

The problem is then you could have Joe Blow on the street say "It's my opinion that Emerson should not have raped his friend's goat". If you don't have RS support for the fact that E raped his friend's goat, you can't sneak it in that way.

Sugg, however, doesn't even have that level of notability. He is a no-name 1-article author. It's an article, not an op-ed, so it doesn't speak for FAIR. And this writer for a bankrupt non-RS alternative newspaper has no indicia of notability. Thomas Friedman, he's not. And --Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

AN/Is

• Hello. This is to inform you that there currently is a discussion here regarding the issues of edit warring, canvassing, vote-stacking, and BLP/defamation at the Emerson article, which you edited yesterday.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it would be best for Greg to say "IMHO", to signal that he is making a statement of fact rather than one of opinion, for those who might think otherwise.

But I wonder whether you are not casting an aspersion on left-wing journalists, by saying "We get it, you don't Sugg, or left-wing journalists in general". Certainly, left-wing journalists in general don't have a track record of making claims as unique as those that Greg points to in his post. And, of course, as to living left-wing journalists, your comment could therefore well raise a BLP issue. So, you might want to refactor it (quite apart from the fact that there doesn't seem to be any basis for it).  ;-) --Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your revision. Good call. (IMHO -- and I could, of course, be wrong). BTW, just a general note ... this is a judgment call, but I think that a note like that would best go (as mine to you above) on the user's talk page. Otherwise, the already overly long string becomes laden with unrelated back-and-forths that serve to obscure the real issue at hand. It seems to me that one of the editors in that string is engaging in just such an effort purposefully, though I could be wrong. And I'm sure that's not your intent -- so I just thought I would mention my thought. You, of course, can differ. But, assuming Greg says fine (either w/a comment as to the real-world risk here or not), and makes a change, then that string becomes laden with completely extraneous discussion that distracts the reader from some very real issues.

Unless you and he delete your entries.

Just my thought.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Moving it to AN/I does not address my concerns of distracting from the issue at hand in the least. That's a discussion best kept to your individual talk pages only IMHO -- you can always put in a one sentence link to the talk page discussion, if you think it helpful.

It doesn't relate to the AN/I discussion at all. The AN/I is to discuss what sanctions, if any, should be leveled at Annoy. Your entre-the-two-of-you discussion is a red herring. I'm sure you don't want to distract the editors from the issue at hand. I would request somewhat passionately that you refactor whatever AN/I discussion you have started, and instead link to Greg or your talkpage (at most), so interested readers can follow that if they like, while disinterested ones will not be turned away by discourse unrelated to the central purpose of the AN/I.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I did misinterpret -- and was so concerned that what I feared was what was afoot, that I didn't take a moment to look. Tx for the correction. Whew. As to the collapse box -- here's a suggestion. Why not propose that to Greg? If you are in agreement, I'm happy to do it. I'll take a look at the AN/I when I have a chance, but am a bit surprised (not having read it) that one would be brought. I wouldn't think there is a basis for one. But I've not read yet what you wrote.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing it would be best if you asked Greg (you can say I suggested you ask him). It's not crucial that it be rolled up ... or moved to your talk page or his (I think the main issue in that string is coming to an end). And he may prefer that it not be rolled up for all I know, which would be fine. But if both of you agreed, it would be a fine thing to do, and I would encourage discussion rather than avoidance as the best course. Just my thoughts, which of course you are free to ignore. As to the issue (I'm jugging right now, so still havent read the AN/I), I thought he said he was fine tossing in an IMHO or two... No? If we can avoid wikidrama, why not?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I note your AN/I post failed to reflect the P.S. that he had left. I think that squarely addresses your issue, and the AN/I is needless wikidrama. I assume, since you posted his entry prior to that P.S., that you somehow missed it, even though your posting about the AN/I followed his. I would suggest that the AN/I be withdrawn, given this, and if you like you can work out any specifics w/GL. That way, people can focus on other matters. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• A suggestion -- to reflect your good faith, I would suggest that you indicate at the AN/I that you opened it not realizing that the P.S. had been left (51 minutes before you posted your AN/I), and that what Greg suggested there is all you were hoping for, and you indicate that there is not need for further attention at the AN/I.

As it stands now (and since the P.S. was left, actually), there's really no dispute worthy of time at the AN/I. No doubt, had you seen the P.S., you would not have brought the AN/I (saying I'm bringing this AN/I over whether GL will do what he says he will do). So, similarly, there's no call for it to be open now. If you have specific phrases that trouble you where you feel IMHO will clarify that it is not a statement of fact but of his opinion, why not let him know. My guess is he will then either do what he said he would, or invite you to do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get overly involved in this as at the moment, as I doubt I'm in the proper frame of mind. I was hoping that this could all be handled maturely, and that there was really scarcely a divide. Furthermore, I'm as I expressed at the AN/I a bit put out about editors crying "BLP" for political reasons, and failing to be true -- as where John Z, whom I've edited alongside, calls it a heinous crime when he mistakenly thinks I was responsible for some statements, but pooh-poohs it when he realizes it was his colleague Annoy. I'm not at all amused by such behavior.

And, as I said, though I was hoping not to go there, I can't see why you haven't jumped at reverting Anon and fixing the BLP statements I pointed out. They are far, far more serious.

I have no idea what Greg L is thinking. But I can tell you that my mood at the moment is not one of let's all sing kumbayah (or however that is spelled).

I'm guessing that administrators don't particularly care. But I don't know what they are thinking, either.

As to the section heading, I've moved the names further down and made it a sub-heading. The problem is that while you had never intended for the issue to spread, John Z went ahead and spread it. The post is not mostly about BLP violations alleged to have been made by the three of us. The sub-heading, where the conversation veers, makes that clear. Sorry I'm not in a more pleasant mood, but its one thing for people to have honest disagreements; its quite another for someone to change completely their view of the policies -- based on who they will impact. I try greatly to not do that, and am disappointed when I see that behavior in others.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Seth Frantzman

I wanted to thank you for the work you put in deleting Seth Frantzman, it was primarily a negative entry about me created by someone with well meaning intentions but which became a dumping ground for malicious material. However you should know, despite what your claim, that I am actually a columnist, and have been for a year, for the Jerusalem Post with a weekly column appearing every wednesday named "Terra Incognita" , inshallah I will continue to be. Anyway thanks for getting rid of the entry, the exposure (i.e accusations of being right wing) caused me a lot of headaches in the academy which is my primary profession, where there few readers of the Post but all-too-many who came across Wikipedia. keep up the good work, thanks for looking out for me, Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant to mention to you George that we need a "Valiant Effort" barnstar created for you. To go to bat cleaning up an article that you disagree with notability wise is pretty sweet. And I am still fuming over Saturday's draw! We need some goals, dammit.Cptnono (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And replied over on my talk. I never do it the same on talk pages for some reason.Cptnono (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You totally chimed in at ANI! IP is screwing around too much and I am not worried about it since it appears to be a sockmaster. I actually started working on the article since I thought testicles could be funny but there is the whole political thing. To make it worse, I edit the Glenn Beck article just for the riffraff. Blargh! All that aside: thank you. Message at the taskforce page you might be interested in.Cptnono (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: IP

Ah yes, I do remember. It might take me a bit to read through and refresh my memory further as to what this was all about, and to get my head round this new Wiki. I'll try to get to it but have an exam tomorrow, you might want to raise an ANI thread. Apologies. SGGH ^ping! 10:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts thread added. Apologies for delay. Feel free to comment there. SGGH ^ping! 10:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

About your WQA

I would usually mark it as resolved, but as the issue was resolved without others help, would you be OK to withdraw the WQA report? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've went ahead and did it this time. Obviously, in the unlikely event an issue recurs, you'd refer to the edit and the subsequent assurance rather than the withdrawn WQA report. ;) If you want to withdraw any noticeboard post, removing the thread with an edit summary of "withdrawn" should do; of course, no one else should have commented, or, everyone who has commented should have agreed to their comments being removed. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for MEDCAB Mediation

The request for mediation concerning Israel and the apartheid analogy, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). If you have any questions, please contact me.

Ronk01 (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Location of raid

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10219391.stm

Hi George. Check out the map in this BBC article. It looks like the incident was quite far from the Gaza coast. Thoughts?

Zuchinni one (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I was originally thinking of using the BBC map and google earth to get a location ... but that would be WP:Synth, so I'm not sure what to do. Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The activists are evil!

No not really. I hope you are going this evening my wikifriend who I completely disagree with politically :) Only half kidding since I assume that we both agree anyone getting shot is a bad thing even though I have an Israeli slant.Cptnono (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So hung over all day. I was planning on taking it easy but the goals kept on coming. Red Sox? The girl is from Boston (boooooo) and is rabid. It it is to the point that I get worried when I notice Yankees caps when we are out since something terrible is bound to come out of her mouth. Th match against Colorado has M's v Sox at Safeco a few hours before kickoff at Qwest. Going to be screwed the next day!

The political theater completely shows in the article. Both Israel and Free Gaza were instantly doing damage control that made for some crazy contradictions.

Yeah, I saw a chart (here on Wikipedia I think) with the big difference in birth rates. Building fences and walls doesn't foster any sort of integration or good will if Israel plans on not completing the split. I think they are better not together but people said that about the States and South Africa at one time so who knows what is possible.Cptnono (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent revert from Gaza flotilla raid

Hi. I came accross a revert from you on Gaza flotilla raid: [7]. This was extensively discussed on the talk page and the decision was to keep it in the lead. Please undo your revert, and check the talk pages before arbitrarily removing content. --386-DX (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

See Also

Hi George,

While I agree with you that weakly related See Alsos should either all be included or all excluded, I think that the Karine_A_Affair is pretty directly related. Since events like that are supposedly the exact reason the Israeli blockade was set up.

However Exodus and Francop both seem unrelated to me.

Thoughts?

Zuchinni one (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the differences, I think Israelis point to Karine A as an example of why they have a blockade of Gaza. They are directly related in that one is the the cause of the blockade, and the other is the response.

Zuchinni one (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but the Karine A happened last year not historically. It is directly relevant to the current situation between Gaza & Israel and the blockade. Zuchinni one (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)I

Hi George, I'm not quite sure what you mean that a link is describing the Israeli narrative. But I do completely agree with you that we need to keep the narrative from both sides out as much as possible. This is an article about a group of people who were trying to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza to deliver aid. The Karine A was a ship that was trying to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza to deliver weapons. I don't think anyone disagrees with either of those points. But regardless of any 'sides' those are the facts. The See Also link doesn't need any editorialization, just a link. Readers can decide for themselves whether or not the weapons being delivered were justified. But the relationship between the two events is obvious and undeniable.

Notice that I'm not complaining about the other link to "Attacks on Humanitarian workers". Do you believe that link is not part of a narrative? Of course it is. But its also OK because even though the Israelis describe the event as IHH terrorists springing a trap, other people call it an attack on humanitarians.

If you want to avoid the narrative of either side than both links need to included, or both need to go. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The See also section is getting on me nerves. Things should be put in the body or explained appropriately as laid out in the MoS. I think if Exodus would have been integrated into the reactions section (which looks possible with the coverage) then the others might have never been brought up at all. Might be too late now since other editors are getting entrenched on the issue. I think the big problem is that it pops as a label and can start adding prominence to certain issues even when at the bottom of the article. I hate See also sections anyways. Qwest Field and Sigi Schmid don't even have them. Its nice to see you guys are collaborating, though! Speaking of that, George, June 29th at Kitsap Pumas or Portland (TBD). First game in hopefully a good run. Bremerton is a short ferry ride away if they beat Portland first.Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I'm not even convinced the page needs anything in a See Also section. The SS Exodus seems to have an extremely weak relationship, and the other ship incidents really belong in the background section of the blockade article itself, not the raid article. The raid article doesn't even link to the blockade article.

And very interesting bracket! So the game will for sure be away, regardless of who we play? ← George ^talk 21:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Away no matter what based on how the draw went.Cptnono (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi George, You're right. The Karine A was BEFORE the blockade. My apologies. Whomever added it originally listed the date as 2009, which would have been after the blockade began. Given the date is pre-blockade I have to agree with you that it really doesn't belong. I'm also in agreement about the Exodus and the Humanitarian worker attacks. For two reasons 1) was it really an attack or were they just trying to stop the ship 2) look at how the referenced article describes humanitarian workers "Humanitarian aid workers belonging to United Nations organisations, PVOs / NGOs or the Red Cross / Red Crescent". This doesn't seem to jive with the fact that they were more activists than humanitarian aid workers. Overall my thought then, is that these less-related items should either all be included or excluded. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Only 10% of the Lebanese people is of Arab descent

Please, George, stop editing the section that shows the ethnic distribution in Lebanon. If you're really after the truth (as your profile says), you shouldn't be a propaganda agent of misinformation.

Here's a video from the leading scientist in the Human Genome project, Dr. Spencer Wells, explaining who the Lebanese people, ethnically and genetically, are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZjF5IfuML0

They all carry the J2 haplogroup genetic imprint that indicates their Canaanite origin. By the way, most Jews today belong the J2 haplogroup. The Arabs, on the other hand, belong to J1, which stemmed from South of the Arabian Peninsula, not in the Levant, as J2. J1 presence in Lebanon is around 10%, indicating that the intermixing with the Arabs that occurred during the Islamic conquests was limited.

The only reason why the Lebanese people are called Arab today is purely political. Saudi Arabia sponsored an agreement that brought an end to the Lebanese Civil War in 1989. At that time, the Christians were left leaderless and powerless; without any true Christian representation, the Muslims, who by the way consider themselves Arab because their definition of Arab is based on Muhammad's definition, which stated "any person who spoke Arabic" and made sense 1400 years ago. However, in reality, we know that not any person who speaks a certain language is ethnically from that group. Most Americans speak English, but I don't think they're considered ethnically English. Each American has his/her own heritage. I hope you respect that as well.

So, having said that, we should rectify things to state: Lebanese are ethnically: 40% Phoenician/Canaanite, 20% Aramaean/Syrian, 15% Greek, 10% Arab, 10% French, 4% Armenian, and 1% other. These numbers are based on Dr. Spencer Wells and Dr. Pierre Zalloua Human Genome Project results. Phoenician/Canaanite haplogroup is J2. Aramaean/Syrian is E1b1b1b. Greek is E1b1b1a. Arab is J1. French is R1a and R1b. John.hayek (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you think?

Hey George, it's been a loooong time since my last significant activity here, it is saddening to see other projects and communities elsewhere (google 3d warehouse, DA, SSC) thriving and our efforts here have little reach. What we need is to COMMUNICATE and reach out to creare interrest in wpleb, wikipedia by itself is very dull and the existing forum is only accessed by a small population of wikipedians. Wut im suggesting is to have a place for our members to communicate and share while still mantaining their privacy. There is a very active forum "skyscrapercity" its themes go beyond archiecture to include every aspect of lebanese culture, the guys are Very active and already dedicate a lot of their time for their online community. So shall i proceed in spreading the word here and on ssc? Eli+ 05:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, George. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page.
Message added 00:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Open SPI case

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dajudem, please review this edit and remember to act civilly with regards to your contributions to the case. This notice is being sent to all active participants in this case and does not imply any wrongdoing on your part. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

?

Male. As for a different topic, I kinda wish you had waited on that, there is a lot more evidence. I'll add what I can today. nableezy - 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's additional behavioral evidence, but I wanted to keep the case as simple as possible, so I tried to go with what I felt was the strongest point first. It's quite difficult for people to change the structure of their writing style (grammar, punctuation; phrasing), but it's also more difficult to explain those things to others. ← George ^talk 16:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I expected this from Nableezy but from you George? I thought better of you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Check your email. nableezy - 16:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel is "she"

Hi George, here are some poems that I wrote a while ago. Please search for the words "They have not bothered any one" and read how I refer to Israel. Israel has always been "she". I assure you there is absolutely nothing unusual in that.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation: Israel and the Apartheid analogy

Just an FYI, we are running a straw poll on title choices on the mediation page - see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Straw_poll_on_titles. If you pitch in a vote or three, we can move this along. --Ludwigs2 06:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your title

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is it that you do around here? From the discussion in the talk page to Six-Day War, I was given the impression that you are in a position of authority (like an admin or an arbitrator). If that is the case, maybe you should clarify that on your user page. It's always good to know who's working with the establishment. ;-) Shoplifter (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't mean to imply that it is. You just came off as authoritative to me, which is good. You seem to be a fair person. Shoplifter (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way to do it. I regret some of the edits I've done, even up to quite recently. There's nothing to win here by being contentious. At least I want to believe that. Wikipedia has the potential to be a true neutral arbiter, a well-functioning democracy. Shoplifter (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on closure of Israel and Aparthied mediation

Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. --Ludwigs2 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A request for a 2nd opinion (if you have time)

I'm starting to feel like I'm talking to a brick wall when trying to defend the use of File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg in the Sounders FC club article and the USOC final article. Given that you're familiar with the process both of these articles went through before reaching FA status, I wonder if you wouldn't mind providing a second opinion in the discussion. If you don't have time, I understand. Thanks either way. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User Talk :Humaliwalay

Hi,

I notice you post on Humaliwalay (talk · contribs)'s talk page and your edit sum on the Lebanon article, while at this time I take no position on them, one thing is clear they are not vandalism. Vandalism has a clear definition namely "is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." (My bold and underline). I do not think that this is the case. Please be careful in the future when reverting edits or making talk page posts, only describe something as vandalism if it is clearly so. Codf1977 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that his edit was questionable, but in and of it's self was not vandalism, the IP's edit probably was, but not Humaliwalay's. Codf1977 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to make a big deal of this but you only reverted one edit - have a look at the dif between your last two edits - the only edit in between was Humaliwalay's. Codf1977 (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I tender apologies for the mistake of unintentionally adding Muslim Republic name to the name of Lebanon, I agree that Lebanon is neither Islamic or Muslim Republic, even powerful Islamic party like Hezbollah denies that, It happened when I tried to revert the demographic section. Well now I did it separately and added Pew Research Center estimates specifically keeping your highlighted figures to avoid clash of reliable sources. Thanks and Happy editing. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Rafik Hariri was a front for King Fahd of Saudi Arabia

I don't know why you are getting upset over it being mentioned that Hariri was a front for King Fahd of Saudi Arabia - it was well known. You either don't know the background of the Hariris, or you don't want it known where his money came from. Hariri was considered to be a stooge of Fahd and, behind him, America. In the end, it got him killed. It is no coincidence that, of all the countries in the world to go to school in, Hariri Junior went to unversity in America. I mean, what did you think?, that Rafiq Hariri was a self-made man?, that he was his own man??? Don't be ridiculous - he was a front for Fahd. I doubt if either Hariris know/knew how to make a dime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.135.231 (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

More to the point - Rafik Hariri "made" his money in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, it is impossible to make money unless you ARE fronting for a major prince or a family like, say, the Algosaibis. To leave out the source of Hariri's wealth is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.135.231 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for your review/feedback

I've suggested the addition of a new section to Seattle Sounders FC in this discussion. I would appreciate it if you could review the prose a make any changes/improvements you can think of. Thanks. --SkotyWA^T_C 15:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

I would call you a dirty wikilawyering bastard for being so picky on the guidelines but so far you have been right. :) Write up an alternate proposal but keep in mind precedents in assessment discussions across the project that point to those guidelines (I amended the WP:LEAD mention). I think the conversation might be a little derailed but it looks salvageable enough. A few tweaks and other proposals might work and as long as the edit warring stops I am mostly happy.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I do believe there are much deeper issues, though. Regarding the guidelines and policies, it is hard to tread the line of wikilawyering and actually sticking to them. You have actually stayed on the right side with that one and it is damn refreshing!

And Halloween @ Qwest! Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And that stuff has made the few times we have discussed in the I-P topic area that much better. Everyone should try it. But yeah, you better be going if at all possible. Last match of the year at Qwest and the guys are on fire (compared to the earlier spankings by LA).Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, George. I didn't ignore anything. I was hanging out in my new hood last night and when I came home we didn't have internet! Cptnono (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't really being pissy with the "dammit George" comment. No worries, man. I really just wanted to mention my new hood since I am going to get shot.Cptnono (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a $8 cab to Qwest. And the street is one that hasn't succumbed to gentrification like other parts. I was drinking gin with the the neighbors and whenever anyone that wasn't a customer would roll by they became all sketchy. As far as Seattle goes (since it isn't LA or NY) the turf war is bad. Interesting stuff. Have no doubt that I don't plan on leaving Wikipedia so if I am gone for awhile it is for getting arrested after storming the field or getting rolled by the neighbors after saying something stupid!

But back on topic, I hoped when I logged in today that it would have been sorted but it is even more of a mess. This conversation has been open for months and it didn't really start addressing fixes until just recently. Hopefully it gets better. I'm going to try to not repeat myself anymore and hopefully people will take your advice and throw up some alternate proposals.Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't your proposal be: "Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) are considered illegal under international law by the international community, but Israel disputes this." ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how anyone could read it that way. As long as one of the gets enough support the edit warring will stop (a good thing). I just won't be supporting the later.Cptnono (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, George. You have new messages at AgadaUrbanit's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is hereby awarded for extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to constructive engagement with fellow editors. Awarded by PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Racism in Israel

CiF is the opinion section of the Guardian's web site. See this. Please self-revert. By the way, the fact the information is obviously wrong (do the Geneva Conventions recognize the Palestinians' right of return?) could have clued you in here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle

Hi George, I was wondering if you'd be willing to read through this article. I've been working on it on and off since mid-2009, and would like to try to bring it to FA status. A peer review was started last year, but then I got involved in the al-Durrah article, and couldn't face another I/P one for a while, but I recently thought I should have another go. So I've re-opened the peer review here, in case you'd be willing to comment.

If you don't have time or inclination, that's absolutely fine; or if you would like to read only a small portion, that would be fine too, and there's no rush for any of it. But please do feel free to say no (or ignore entirely), because I know it can be a pain to do this kind of thing. Best, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's great, George, many thanks. Even if you only glance at it to do a brief POV check, that would be a great help. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Server kittens

I use the templates because that is how I initially started and it works for me. They are not necessary, though. If I recall correctly, Slim Virgin is very against them like some other editors are because they take up more resources. I don't believe there is a rule either way but it is probably not a problem if you are comfortable throwing in refs without the templates .

Your edit has lasted much longer than I anticipated. We'll see what happens. SD is actually going about it well on the smaller articles (although that nationality and cave thing might boggle it up). I am a little concerned about how much room the line is taking up in couple line articles but it really is a good step for the most part.Cptnono (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it was only one of Shuki's edit summaries that mentioned wording during the revert ("no final consensus for wording or placement"). So it looks to have been part of it but it was not the only reason according to his argument and edit summaries.

Flickr had a couple UCLA pics. Licensing issues. I would love to get a picture of him in green for the main image. However,he is facing towards the text (unlike the one below) and it is a decent shot quality wise. Hear you, though. Drove me mad searching for something to replace it with.Cptnono (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

AE comment

Note that LHvU found there was consensus for including the phrasing "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." in most articles. In the clarification you link to he's, IMHO confusingly simply talking about where it should be placed & whether it should be expanded upon. Nowhere does he give any support for the "disputed illegality" phrasing.--Misarxist 15:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Link

Hey, do you have that link to that website/article written by Jiujitsuguy where he makes comments about I think it was Arabs or Muslims or Nableezy (I don't remember the topic exactly), do you know what I'm talking about? Can you send it to my mail? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask why you want that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Want to look at it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw the discussion on PhilKnight's page. I'm not sure why Jiujitsuguy thinks it's a good idea or fair to use the line of argument he is using there given what he has written in the past. Perhaps he will let it go. If not, I'll ask him about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)