Good news, 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final has just passed WP:GA review and now has that most excellent green icon in the top right. Keeping the progress going, I opened a peer review for the article in the hopes of getting it prepared for an FA review. If you have some spare cycles, it would be great if you would take a moment and read the article and provide feedback/suggestions on the prose (or anything else). Thanks. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear George, care to take a look and have a say? Eli+ 17:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to post a friendly comment thanking you for your civility and cooperation in the Hezbollah article. Your recent edits have been most welcome as well. We don't always agree on Middle East politics, but you have consistently been a pleasure to work with on Wikipedia. --GHcool (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

correxted per guidelines, you can resolve the issue as the nom if you want.(Lihaas (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

Hello, George. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
Message added 00:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Need your opinion on a brainwave I've had. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, I have mandated Lihaas to discus any revert made at Hezbollah on the talk page within 30 minutes and before any further edits to the article. If they violate the restriction, and I hope they don't, you (or any other editor) can report the violation to WP:AE and/or my talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read your manifest about your preferred solution. If you don't mind, I'll post here my comments-if you do, just remove them and I'll not return them or post any other attainments instead. I'll start from the end: you are not seem to be updated with the birth rate: Arab rate of birth in Israel has declined sharply since Benjamin Netanyau cut the birth and children subsidies that once were given-it's no longer a real treat, certainly not an immediate one-and as we know here in Israel-things change very rapidly and sometimes unpredictably in the Middle East:about 4-5 month ago everybody thought that Iran would get nuclear weapon in a matter of months. But then, some kind of super sophisticated cyberweapon, a mastermind that nobody know who built, terminated who knows how much of the Iranian nuclear grid and set back the clock 4 years back (it is now known that it could also blown nuclear reactors by manipulating their gas turbines if its operators would only press the right button). The Iranian economy have lost nearly half of its volume since 2006, once one liter of gasoline cost less than 40 cents and now it cost about 2$ per liter, with average household income in Iran shrink dramatically, not to mention all those Iranian scientists being assassinated, Iranian front organizations being exposed worldwide minute after they were established, Russian-Iranian arm deals being called off, military jets falling from the sky and Iranian ships loaded with special "humanitarian aid" being drowned by submarines, fighter jets and UAVs in the Indian ocean almost every month, as well as one Syrian reactor that was bombed by who know who (and with the state of the art Russian anti aircraft batteries were mysteriously blinded during the attack), Hezbollah chief of stuff was decapitated by a hidden charge in his car rest in Syria's most heavily guarded neighborhood, a Syrian missile plant was exploded (technical failure I guess, very much like these happened in some nuclear sites in Iran), a Syrian general who was involved in many operations against Israel was sniped while sunbathing in his coastal villa, and every two days Hezbollah announce that it uncovered a new sophisticated spying network or new sophisticated wiretapping and surveillance device. Not to mention that now Lebanon is seem on the break of civilian war and that for the first time some European leaders talk about considering the use of military option against Iran (whose leadership is reportedly in paranoid mood). It is said that the Iranian regime, which sponsor Hezbollah- a savage terror militia (English Wikipedia abide to the American law), is under huge tensions and that the Iranian leadership is strongly divided to those who support the continuation of the nuclear program and those who believe Iran could not carry this heavy burden much longer. So, why should Israel give the Golan? It's now under Israeli sovereignty longer time than it was under Syrian one, it is part of Jewish history and it was mentioned in the Bible long before Syria (name given by the Greeks) was even exist or spoke Arabic and we truly don't think that it would change anything for the good (and not that anything is worth giving the Golan).

So, you are against religion countries-which very much put you in delicate situation in the Middle East-because Iran is a religion state, Yaman is, Dubai is, Many Muslim countries are-and they have very strict public code of behavior. Lebanon, as I already mentioned, is on the break of civilian war-if it happened then your country could find itself formally under Hezbollah control and therefore a Shiite country. But that's not important for my argument, Israel is indeed the country of the Jewish people and while in some aspects there is no separation between religion and country (very few unfortunately, the most notable is that one can't marry in civilian marriage in Israel -but full legal rights of married people are given to common law couples even without marriage and if someone has married outside the country in civilian marriage and return to Israel then the state will acknowledge the marriage) I believe it's every country right to decide in what color it want its flag and what symbols will decorate it. Germany (and some other EU countries) give special right of return to people who prove they are ethnically Germans, even if they live for three generations in China. Japan don't consider people merit for citizenship based on marriage. Many European countries have very dominant cultural-religious component -the right wing parties who fight the Islamic immigration in Europe talking about "keeping Europe Christian" though many times these parties are very secular in every aspect and have completely secular bedding. In Lebanon there is division of the parliament which is based on clans. I don't care what is the bedding of any country as much as it doesn't hurt me. So, I truly don't understand why you focus on Israel or why you think it should make any difference for you.

You think Israel should allow the return of those who were in its territory in 1948. Do you think that Muslim countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Egypt, or even Lebanon should give the Jews who escaped them the right of return? This is a rhetoric question because we all know what will happen to those who will chose to return. They will probably be slaughtered. And anyway, Jews are not interested in having such right.

The very most of Jewish people in Israel don't believe that those who flee Israel in 1948 have the right of return and certainly not their descendants. We see it as very minded attempt to destroy Israel -we already said that if those really want to return the Palestinian authority should accept them. Many (though not necessarily most) Israeli Arabs I met were strongly against any right of return simply because they know what catastrophic result it intend to cause and are very appreciative for their life in Israel. --Gilisa (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to thank you for your help in the peer review and to let you know that I've nominated it for FAC. Given the large backlog of nominated articles, the regular FAC reviewers there are swamped. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate your review of the article with any feedback, suggested improvements, or support for the nomination. Please feel free to leave comments in the article review page when/if you have time. Thanks! --SkotyWA^T_C 02:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 19, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 19, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are adding so much to the first paragraph, when this is all mentioned in the second. The first Paragraph was not the one disputed(see all Nableezy's edits), and has been discussed at length ages ago (see Ramot talk page).Editorprop (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I read your reply, but as you can see (in nab's edits), that wasn't the dispute. Also - Ramot is not in the outskirts of J-lem, it is in Jerusalem defacto (and the legality issue is discussed later). I don't think Ramot should be the only neighborhood in Jerusalem that is considered a settlement in the lead. In addtion - according to clinton parameters, Geneva accord and by Palestinians also (according to Palestine papers) it is so too, so it seems a bit out of place to have so much about this settlement issue. I'm sure you intend good, and I appreciate it, but I think this edit makes injustice. All the best :)Editorprop (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The defacto status is not in dispute. The dejure is in dispute. Secondly - I didn't see any RS calling Ramot "within the Palestinian territories"Editorprop (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am here to kindly re-iterate my desire for you to retract (or delete) your statement implying that I am, or might be, a SOCK. Thankyou. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs) is the name you are looking for. nableezy - 13:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions, I too had just reached the same conclusion. RolandR (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't wait for you guys to eat your words! ;-) OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask you this, OpinionsAreLikeAHoles. Have you ever edited Wikipedia before using a different username or IP address? How long have you been editing Wikipedia in total? What country are you editing from? And how did you come across Nableezy's AE? I don't buy your Lara Logan excuse, as you've made a grand total of 1 edit to that article's talk page ever (and none to the article itself), and that 1 edit was nowhere near Nableezy's comments on the page. ← George ^talk 19:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be hard for this editor to deny the use of socks, given their lapse on NorthernBlades talkpage. RolandR (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt that they're a sock, it's just a question of who and whether or not they have a valid reason to sock. ← George ^talk 22:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi George, you're invited to comment on this AE: [1].—Biosketch (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

[2] Where is this discussed please? Chesdovi (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi George, I love interaction bans. I believe that they greatly reduce the amount of drama, and stress. I believe, if an editor A is asking for an interaction ban and editor B is refusing there's not doubt who is a victim and who is a hound in such situation. Anyway I asked Malik for his opinion here. I'd be interested to hear your opinion at the same thread, if you have a time. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Why you bringing my Sounder buddy into this, Mbz1 :P ? I also agree an interaction ban is not the worst idea although I hate it on principle. I am sorry to bring our project into disrepute with my shenanigans (by association). Anyways: 4-2 bitches. Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 - I don't have a blanket opinion on interaction bans. Sometimes they're helpful in calming things down, and other times they unnecessarily get in the way of otherwise constructive editors. In general I'd have to judge it on a case-by-case basis. ← George ^talk 23:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

All that aside: Maybe luck and maybe not but Sigi is proving me wrong: "Sounders FC is riding a six-game nonlosing streak. Since their 1-0 loss to FC Dallas on May 25, the Sounders have scored 11 goals, almost as many as they had in the previous 13 games (14)." (Seattle Times) 1.08 v 1.83 goal ratio. Not perfectly entertaining but a step up.

And Big Al's (Fremont/Ballardish) IPA for the win tonight. Good stuff. 06:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the AE is not about socking but a revert, I rather move any issues about that somewhere else or to the appropriate noticeboard. If you could run a check-user the username(s) that would be really good. If someone is trying to frame me I would like to know. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I might get banned on behavioral evidence but you think the behavioral evidence isn't strong enough to justify a ban or justify a SPI? Since you have been involved in prior disputes with me several years ago (original AEs), your input carries a lot of weight. I'm guessing check-user only compares the accuser with the socks? The check user doesn't seek out all wikipedia accounts right? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would totally sign off and allow a check user to be used because I am totally opposed to sock-puppetry. And like you said the user may have the same views of me, but if the user is a sock-puppet and my name is being attached to it the real user should be revealed. I don't like having a lingering accusation that poisons the AE. But did you mean you don't see enough evidence to support a ban or support a sock-puppet case? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how All Rows4 could be my "meatpuppet" since I made the edit like a year ago. Banning an editor over a single edit would be pretty hard to defend. We could just as easily accuse editors who revert my original edit as meatpuppets, right? I just don't like accusations of sock-puppetry. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This link should work without a subscription. Based on your previous thoughts, I thought you might find the "parallel state" idea interesting (regardless if you agree with it or not). From The Economist Cptnono (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In case you've missed it, there is a discussion regarding the reliability of the book "Icon of Evil" (co-authored by Dalin) and used in the Mein Kampf in the Arabic language article. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is embarrasing. The reason I posted this was due to this edit which I, quite mistakingly, thought you have made. I'm sorry for the confusion. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I haven't crossed paths with you much lately. I come with a humble request. :^) I've nominated the 2010 USOC final for TFA on October 4th here. If you get time in the next few days, please add your support. It'll need it I expect. Very low points. --SkotyWA^T_C 15:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the name is used for a single family. Also, I doubt the Maltese Saliba is related to the Levantine one.--Rafy talk 14:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)