User talk:George/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hello

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Image:Signature icon.png 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
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

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

Hello, George, 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:

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!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)