This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mbz1 (talk | contribs) at 20:30, 14 November 2010 (→Hi: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:30, 14 November 2010 by Mbz1 (talk | contribs) (→Hi: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Archives |
|---|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117
|
| edit |
Please Review Ganas page
I request assistance on the summary section of http://en.wikipedia.org/Ganas. I seem to be in an edit war with Campoftheamericas, and am unable to engage him in stating his case(s) on the talk page. At this point I am mostly concerned with getting agreement on what belongs in the summary, also the validity of some of his references, especially Ganas' own website. Thanks so much. Eroberer (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Eroberer, I've protected the page for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Eroberer (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Trouble is brewing
I would appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the talk page of Gideon Levy. There is a very disgruntled participant in the conversation, who seeks to make a complete rewrite of the lead. The article as it stands was the result of a long and very arduous negotiation, of which the complaining editor was a participant; the end of that negotiation was an agreed version that has held up without challenge for about eight months. The editor has recently disavowed any agreement with the existing version, and wishes to restore the previous version of the lead.
So far he has done nothing untoward (he earlier tried twice to restore the rejected version, but was reverted by other editors), but his latest posts suggest a possible intent to unilaterally make changes in the lead without agreement.
Thanks for your attention. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I just wanted to tell you that you have found a great way to respond to this. It always works for everybody, who knows he's wrong, but would never admit it. :) Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)