User talk:Noon

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) will produce your name and the current date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ann, Noon 17:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove text without a discussion. This might be considered as a vandalism. --Haham hanuka 15:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamaham hanuka, having such a "wonderful" record at Wikipedia with respect to almost all its rules, I would not warn other users about vandalism. You are indefintely banned from using Wikipedia in your mother tongue and also here are as frequently allowed to contribute as not. gidonb 16:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noon, welcome to the English language Wikipedia by the way. ברוך הבא! gidonb 10:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gidonb, and ברוכים הנמצאים.

I'd prefer not to respond at all to HH message. In any case he got what he deserved as he was blocked. Noon 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Noon. You are right that Hama hanuka is not worth the trouble, but I think you are. I responded because it seems sad that a user page should start with such nonsense. For those who do not know him such messages may have an impact. For example, in the recent past a rather aggressive administrator abused Haham hanuka's actions for a personal yet unfounded attack on me. As Hamam hanuka does so much damage and so little good for en.wikipedia, I think we would do good to follow suit with the Hebrew Wikipedia and lay him off. Enough is enough. gidonb 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gidon. I of course agree with you. We should check very carefully each and every so called HH's "contribution". Noon 20:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my quotes. This added to the discussion and the quotes were from a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 11:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source in German for that Hitler quote? I've seen it both "Jew" and "Jews", of course. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I've checked the sites where "jews" is quoted and most of them are mirrors or quotes from WP article, whereas the sites where "jew" is quoted look historically more accurate. Noon 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Do we have any sources for the quote? I'm surprised that I didn't find anything relevant at Nizkor.org. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. (calling all editors that vote differently than you on an AfD nomination "meatpuppets" or "sockpuppets" is a clear ad hominem personal attack). --Col. Hauler 10:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Israelbeach; at least four of the "keep" voters are included in this list. I'd expect that you'll restore my comment in the AfD, or delete the above list of suspected sockpuppets. Thanks, Noon 10:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That page has very little validity, as it was set up by the guy he was arguing with, Woggly (talk · contribs), mainly it seems out of a desire for revenge. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Israelbeach?action=history - Most have no or very little evidence that they are "sockpuppets". As I said there, it's pretty damn bad form to say that new users are automatically sockpuppets just because you don't agree with their views or their vote.

Please bear in mind WP:AGF, Wikipedia:Please don't bite the newcomers and innocent until proven guilty (which seems to be the basis of WP:AGF).--Col. Hauler 13:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To attribute false "personal attack" to another contributor is by itself a personal attack. Most users in the Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Israelbeach page were indefinitely blocked as they were identified as puppets of Israelbeach. Are you suggesting that the blocking admins should be blocked as well for personal attack? You've shown a very bad conduct by editing my vote in the AfD page. Please don't do that again. Noon 14:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalising articles, I consider what you are doing trolling, if you don't want to be banned stop it now. --Haham hanuka 18:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tiffany Holiday has been created by the "Warner" and speedied by others for nn already more than once in the past. Noon pointed out that these deletions have been challenged by the above "Warner" and have been specifically endorsed by the Wikipedia community [1] [2]? Next he just creates it again and above all has the cheek to issue a "last warning" to the person addressing the trolling! How much more can one ridicule one's community? The "Warner" has undone several other Wikipedia community decisions in a similar manner. Noon deserves recognition for his alertness in implementing our community decisions, definitely not a warning. gidonb 21:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

שניכם משתפים פעולה באופן מאוד מחשיד, אתם עוקבים אחר התרומות שלי והורסים אותן. אני מקווה שתפסיקו עם זה. בנוגע ליגאל עמיר העברתי את זה לויקיציטוט ואתם מתבקשים לא להכניס לשם את דעותיכם האישיות. --Haham hanuka 10:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've written this not in order to offence someone. I'm sorry if you missunderstood me. --Haham hanuka 14:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for performing the name change I suggested in the article's discussion (talk) page (and here I was tardy in citing Yiddish language sources for this version; I even scrutinized his signature in a facsimile text edition of "Dos lid..." but without much success, though the GFH Press spells his name this way in a Yiddish edition of his works. Anyway, as I remain totally daunted by the Rename/Move instructions, you've done us a service here. א שיינעם דאנק, -- Deborahjay 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deborah, thanks. All you have to do in order to change the name of an article is - clicking the "move" tab, write the new name and press the "move page" button to execute the move. Its good also to check the links to the previous name and correct them to avoid redundant redirections. -- Noon 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so... what scared me off was my confusion with what I'd read about the difference between Rename and Move in a case like this where the article's already undergone at least one name change. I also still have to read about Redirect and already have cases in which to apply this.Thanks for the advice! -- Deborahjay 15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the new name is the correct one - simply do the "move"... thats the philosophy of Wikipedia. If you're wrong, there will always be someone to correct (or reverse) you. So Be Bold in your edits... it pays :-) -- Noon 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear -- after 23+ expat years, I'm still such a timid Anglosaxonne :-o
No, really, it has to do with my being a cautious, scrupulous writer on Holocaust material for the Web readership, and the Wikipedia milieu is still quite new and somewhat strange to me. But I'm making progress; encouragement such as yours really does help :-) -- Deborahjay 15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only at you live in Israel and are surley a jew. Killerman2 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [3]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussionside. Killerman2 21:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the article Terrorists of Pakistani origin interesting. It may be deleted soon in perhaps a few hours.

If you have any views on having such articles on Wikipedia, please do share them at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terrorists_of_Pakistani_origin

--Robcotton 01:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noon,

Could you explain why you removed those passages from the Haifa article? To the best of my knowledge, most (if not all) are not contested. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I understand most of your edits, but I'm still unsure about why you removed some of the historical bits and lines dealing with the religious tolerance (and not the later, partisan lines that speak of a supposed policy of segregation). Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 21:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tewfik, I didn't edit the article. I've reverted the edits of User:81.170.5.49 because some of them are totally wrong, and therefore I couldn't count on the rest of it. Noon 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help on the bombing issue. If you want also check out the Lehi page in this same sense. By the way, also interesting I suggest, different issue, to take a look sometime what happened to this page : [4] I think first of all Israel never rejected the plan, as suggested. Secondly, this "background" should probably go, but there should be a mention of "transjordan" in the original plan allocated for Jews. Amoruso 11:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also interesting is how some are trying to say that Ma'ale Adummim is not a city in Israel. Amoruso But most important is Lehi being heavily attackd at the moment. Lehi (group) last good version on 16:28... Amoruso 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

G'day Noon, wondering if you wouldnt mind explaining why you removed the information on a CNN Memo in regards to the "label" of the Neighbourhood/Settlement of Gilo. You said it doesnt belong there, but I am wondering where it does belong. I think it serves to highlight the contentious issue that is the name "Neighbourhood" or "Settlement".

Could join the discussion here [5], since I'm having trouble getting the point across to Anon. Maybe you can think of a different way to explain it? --Robertert (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity you are revert warring instead of resolving this issue through discussion in the talk page. I have given two good arguments for why the link should be removed:

• According to Wikipedia guidelines (WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, such links to personal web pages should be avoided. Gil-Whites is not a notable author on Israeli journalism, and his criticism of Gideon Levy is as notable as anybody's. Note that a recent mediation case determined that User:Ryan4 should be blocked if he continues to add links in violation of WP:EL (this case was mostly about linking to hirhome.com).
• From WP:BLP: "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception." Note that this is policy, and the 3 revert rule does not apply to those who remove this link, and "Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked".--Doron 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noon, I'm going to partially revert your recent edits to the Samir Kuntar article sometime tomorrow (unless someone beats me to it), but I wanted to explain why, since it seems editors have gone back and forth a few times on this.

• I'm going to be re-adding that Kuntar "denied killing the latter two," though I may word it differently if I can think of a more readable format. This should be included in the lead for a few reasons. First, leads are generally up to four paragraphs long. This lead is tiny by Wikipedia's standards, so there's no reason to remove it due to lack of space, not to mention that it's only six words long. Second, leads are intended to reflect a summary of the article. One of the article's twenty paragraphs discusses his assertion that he is innocent, and many of the sources discussing his case mention it, and that's more than significant enough to warrant six words in an undersized lead. Third, since Samir Kuntar is a living person, he is afforded a certain amount of protection under Wikipedia's policies, and claims of innocence certainly fall within that. The same would be true of any person convicted of these crimes, regardless of who convicted them, or how brutal we may agree they were.
• I'm also going to re-add the quotation marks around "one of the most brutal" terrorists. This is a direct quotation of the source, and will help prevent this statement from being removed outright. Without the quotation, the statement becomes much weaker and harder to verify, so I would advise keeping it in there to keep the statement from being ripped out entirely.
• I'm also going to reword your statement regarding him being a national hero in Lebanon, although I'm unsure how it will end up exactly right now. The problem with this is that it's a blanket statement that is weakly supported by available sources. I'm probably going to reword this to say that (a) thousands of people attended celebrations in his honor in Beirut and some other towns, (b) major Lebanese politicians embraced him as a national hero, and (c) I'm probably going to re-add the statement concerning the similar celebrations in Gaza. I might also re-add some of the statements outlining why many in Lebanon do not view him as a hero, but I'm unsure of that at the moment.

I suspect someone else will revert your edits before I get to them, but just wanted to let you know my reasoning in case I end up being the one to revert. Cheers. ← George ^[talk] 10:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, thank you for letting me know and for the genaral sensible conduct of yours in this matter. Here are some of my thoughts regarding your remarks:

• To put Kuntar's reaction and denial in the same sentence where the article depicts the court decision is distasteful; the length of the lead is irrelevant here. This sentence in the lead summarises a sovereign court decision which reached its verdict according to legal "evidence in law" procedures. It is quite usual that the convicted person tries to deny responsibility, and it may be described elsewhere in the article for completeness, but definitely not here. You can say or think whatever you want on several aspects of the Israeli government, but the high standards of its juridical system is widely regarded as one of the most advanced in the western world. I don't see a BLP violation here as this policy doesn't eliminate us to describe what reliable sources say in general or quote court verdicts in particular.

Unfortunately, while you may find the statement distasteful, Wikipedia is not censored, and our individual cultural biases don't belong here. While you may respect the judgement of your government, I have no knowledge of the system or its reliability, nor will most other editors. Was the defendant allowed to enter a plea? What did they plea? Were they tried by a jury of their peers, or a panel of judges, or a single judge, or a military tribunal? What rights are non-Israeli citizens afford under the Israeli judicial system? Was the defendant allowed to appeal? How many times did they appeal, and how many of those appeals were entertained? I also find the whole issue of the court documents being sealed for the last thirty years raises serious questions.

I'm not suggesting that we removing anything cited to reliables sources or quoting court verdicts. I'm saying that the defendant's own statement on their case must be included. If this was another article – an article on the Haran family, or the article on Lebanese prisoner in Israel, or the article on the 2006 war, or an article on the 1979 attack itself, or an article on the prisoner exchange – in any of those cases, I could see not including the statement in the lead. However, this is the article on Samir Kuntar himself. His own statements on this critical event in his life are vital to the article - second only to the conviction itself. To exclude someone's own statements in their defense from the lead of their own article has serious BLP issues, and I'm not very flexible on that issue. ← George ^[talk] 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the quotation marks, in Wikipedia you describe what RS are saying, and you should not put quotation marks wherever five words are quoted. That's a bad practice. The quotation marks may mislead the reader, and give the impression that it is one individual or one newspaper which says it, which is, of course, not the case here.

I'll let this issue go for now, but be aware that at some point an editor who is reviewing this article will likely remove the phrase "one of the most brutal terrorists" and replace it with just "terrorist". Without the quotation marks, the statement becomes a statement of fact rather than a statement of opinion, and facts require significantly more sourcing than this statement currently has. ← George ^[talk] 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the "national hero" issue. The source that I've brought is clear enough, and it took me 5 seconds to find it. I may look for more sources to make this point stronger. However, as I respect the Lebanese people a lot, I agree with you that this sentence should be put in milder wording, and I'm going to change it to say: "In Lebanon he is widely regarded as a national hero". I think that we should put in the lead the attitude to Kuntar in Israel and Lebanon - the two main parties in this issue - and that the current description is backed properly by RS, and moreover - reflects properly the main atmosphere in both countries towards this sad event. Other reactions and opinions, such as those of the Palestinians, may be put in a separate section, but this is not that necessary.

Thanks again, Noon (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let this issue go for now also. I may reword it at some point to reflect that this is the opinion of a minority of Lebanese or Lebanese officials, or offer some counter opinions (such as the source that says most Lebanese view the release negatively, because they oppose Hezbollah and view this as a victory for Hezbollah). I don't mind too strongly one way or another whether the Palestinian reaction is included or not, but worth noting that Kuntar, while a Lebanese citizen, committed his attack as a member of the Palestine Liberation Front (it seems he's often confused for being a member of Hezbollah due to their calls for his release). ← George ^[talk] 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noon,

I noticed you undid my re-naming of Mercaz HaRav shooting (here and here). The question whether to use the term "massacre" or not has been discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/About the use of the word massacre. Please re-consider your re-naming of the article...

The Wikiproject Israel Palestine Collaboration was started to avoid inconsistencies and parallel debates in different articles referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You may want to have a look at the page and participate in some of the discussions there.

Cheers and kind regards, pedrito - talk - 09.10.2008 11:28

Hi Pedrito, I've checked the talkpage regarding the use of the term "massacre", but I couldn't see there any mention of the the Mercaz HaRav massacre, nor a clear consensus of where to use/not use this term - in spite of the fact that the discussion there took place in May, more than 2 months after this horrible incident. If somebody is rushing into an educational institute and shoot indiscriminately in the sole purpose of killing as many young students as possible, then this is a massacre by all reasonable definitions. That he "succeeded" in killing 8 students and not more and wounding another 8, has nothing to do with the very nature of his deliberate attempt to kill indiscriminately as many innocents as possible. Regards, Noon (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noon, the discussion at WP:IPCOLL is a general discussion and does not mention Mercaz HaRav specifically, the idea behind WP:IPCOLL, however, is that the standards set-out there are valid for all articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please, again, re-consider your edit.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 10.10.2008 06:54

I would appreciate it if you could explain why you removed several links from the pages of Israeli political parties, which provided Wikipedia users with valuable information on parties currently serving in the Israeli Knesset and focus on current issues such as coalition negotiations? The explanation of "Palestinian website link not needed" is not sufficient to class something as "spam." The links were to the website of a not-for-profit organization and provided Wikipedia users with current, useful, and factual information. If you have a particular issue with the content of the linked pages, please raise those concerns - but simple spam-marking is not appropriate as a form of censorship on Wikipedia.

Best, Rosemary82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemary82 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

noon

i am in contact with colonel cruz

he was awarded the israeli medal of valor by golda meir

how do we go about verifying this

do we need to contact the ministry of defense

thanks for your advice

cognitonium (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cognitonium, the Israeli Medal of Valor was given until today to 40 Israeli soldiers. The complete list (in Hebrew) may be found here. Golda Meir was not authorized to award the Medal of Valor, as she was not a Defense Minister. In order to add a name to the list of people awarded the Medal of Valor, you have to bring a reliable source for that fact, along with the exact story of the heroic incident (where, why, and when it occured). It's possible that Colonel Cruz got a certain Israeli medal, but, I'm afraid it is not the Medal of Valor. Noon (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added a "2nd revert" to the report at WP:ANEW. Its not a revert, it was a consecutive edit, so the 1st and 2nd count as one. Would you mind undoing your addition so as not to mislead the people reveiwing the case? And can I lso ask that in the future, rather than you reverting to restore a version that has been rejected by other editors, that you participate in the talk page discussion to try to come to some sort of concensus about how to proceed? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are two separate reverts. If you have any objection you may put your reasoning in the relevant WP:AN3 noticeboard section. Noon (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. Please see WP:3RR, the sentence that says, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Could you please acknowledge that you have erred in thinking that to be a revert? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you've probably seen, I've added a comment regarding your note to the WP:AN3 report. Nevertheless, I think that you've violated the 3RR rull, or at least its spirit, in making the revert that I've added, and left the decision on this matter to the closing admin. BTW, I'm a "he" and not a "she". Best, Noon (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the link to the dab because I wasn't sure of his father's descent; you could see on Sorbian that it points out to both a Slavic people in Germany as well as Slavic languages. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorbian ancestry" is about Sorbs. Languages are irrelevant here. I, therefore, prefer direct link to Sorbs, but I won't editwar on that. Noon (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Tel Dan Nature Reserve in the Golan heights? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Noon (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its says in this list that it is in Golan: [6], also the Yehudiya Forest Nature Reserve. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected it and some other inaccuracies. Noon (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if Yehudiya Forest Nature Reserve is in Golan? and if the Gamla nature reserve is outside Golan? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both are in the Golan. Noon (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Art student scam, you reverted my article improvements with the edit summary "rv conspiracy theory/myth per AfD discussion'. The AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_student_scam closed with no consensus. In that light, how do you justify your reversion of my improvements? Both my version and the one you reverted to discuss the "urban myth", so your reversion did not take that bit out. I did not write that the art scam was a conspiracy, I quoted people found in reliable sources, some who say it was nothing, and some who say it was a spy ring. Note that the removal of reliably sourced statements, forming a neutral narrative, was found to be a sign of disruptive, tendentious editing in this ruling by ArbCom back in 2006. Please do not take out my sourced edits which are brought to the article to form a neutral narrative. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting my statement about netanyahu? Whats BLP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noon. Hope you're doing great. Just wanted to ask you about your opinion regarding the neutrality of this section. Do you think it's fairly unbiased? Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scieberking. Sorry, but I don't have enough knowledge or refs regarding this section. Noon (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Scieberking. Noon (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I described the Declaration of the Establishment of Israel in the terms of the operative words of the Declaration itself:-

DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

I simply copied and pasted (where capitals are used) from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affair (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Declaration+of+Establishment+of+State+of+Israel.htm). I omitted the earlier portions of the paragraph because they could rather be more properly described in English as recitals (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q112.htm). Indeed everything leading to that paragraoh consists of various recitals. In normal circumstances, there is no need to refer to the recitals to interpret the operative words of a legal document.

The document on its face operates to bring into existence the state of Irael; the use of the word announcement and the use of the past perfect tense (had been established) suggests that Ben-Gurion was telling everyone of an event that had already happened, clearly not correct.

The Declaration puts the location of the new state simply IN ERETZ-ISRAEL. If it were intended that its location were to be limited to the area of the Mandate set aside for the Jewish state, it would have been quite easy to use something like the followin phrase:-

in the area set aside for the Jewish state by Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly adopted on 29 November 1947.

The introductory paragraph to the article as it now stands uses two separate tests for the area of the new state:-

1 parts of what was known as the British Mandate of Palestine (What parts?)

and

2 on land where, in antiquity, the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah had once been.(Can anyone now tell exactly where its boundaries once were?)

I might add that nowhere in the Declaration are either of the words Israel or Judah mentioned.

The easiest way to describe the Declaration is to use its own operative words:-

DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL. ( with or without capitals}.Trahelliven (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having been reverted twice, the only objection expressed to to my amendment to the introductory paragraph was that part was in capitals (Also you inserted a load of text into the introduction in capital letters - - Number 57). I simply copied and pasted from the Israeli Ministry of foreigh Affairs version. Noon reverted but, in respect of the introductory paragraph, gave no reason. I will accoedingly put back the intruductory paragraph without the capitals.Trahelliven (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trahelliven. As I've written in the article's talk page, I think that your last edit is correct and well sourced, and is the best wording for the lead. Noon (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Richard Kaufmann, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Beit Hakerem and Neve Shaanan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine.

a Your wording may be simpler but it is inaccurate. It may implies that the UNGA had the power to direct the partition, certainly incorrect. Before I became interested in the question of Israel and Palestine, I think I saw the phrase voted for partition in Exodus by Leon Uris and I assumed that the resolution of 29 November was binding. The wording in Resolution 181 is:

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below.

b You commit the same sin that I allegedly committed in the other article you reverted. Original Research.

2 Borders of Israel - Resolution 181(II)

a On your test, both of us have original research. Mine is at lest a quote from the Resolution itself. Incidentally in Resolution 181 the reference to the Arab state always precedes the reference to the Jewish state. I cannot understand why you made this edit.

3 Borders of Israel - Arab invasion of 15 May 1948

a You give no reference for the sentence containing the disputed word. In fact the paragraph contains only one (meaningless) reference^ In the Act of Union, 1950.. Should I delete the whole paragraph?

b Invaded is an emotive word. By 15 May 1948, according to the Cablegram of 15 May 1948 10 (b),

Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries.[7] You may not agee with the number. Certainly by 15 May most Arabs had left Haifa. The Cablegram may or may not be reliable but as an explanation of the reasons for the actions of the Arab League, it is at least a source. Perhaps put in intervened/invaded.

Did the Arab armies invade the areas allocated for the Arab state, already overrun by Jewish forces?

Intervene is the better word.

4 Borders of Israel - East Jerusalem

a The paragraph has no reference at all.

b The addition that I made is an important qualification to the paragraph. Trahelliven (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noon

An example of how a description of Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947 can be misleading has been done by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. HISTORY: Foreign Domination 28 Nov 2010I[8] describes Resolution 181 as follows:-

On 29 November 1947, the Assembly voted to adopt the committee's recommendation to partition the land into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.

I would have stated the sentence as follows:-

On 29 November 1947, the Assembly, Having received and examined the report of the Special Committee, adopted Resolution 181(ii). The Resolution Recommends the adoption and implementation of the Plan to partition the land into Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.

See REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY[9] and Resolution 181(II)[10] The Assembly did not vote to adopt any recommendations. It merely receved the report and it then voted on a resolution (181(II); the latter contained the recommendations.. {The parts in italics are extracted from Resolution 181(II). Trahelliven (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the newly self-declared state located? Do you mean the State of Israel? The Declaration of the Establshment of Israel (14 May 1948) does not tell us where, unless you mean Eretz Israel, that being the only indication in the document. Does invading include marching into those parts of the former Mandate allocated to the proposed Arab state, including any already occupied by Jewish forces? Trahelliven (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please READ the comment and discuss [11]. Its better than edit warring by ignoring it.Lihaas (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove this category from the Al-Khisas raid and Cairo–Haifa train bombings 1948 articles without giving a logical reason. These massacres committed by Zionist organizations like Irgun, Hagana, Palmach etc. are classified under terrorism by Arab public opinion. Translate this [12] if you can not understand Arabic language.--Uishaki (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Uishaki. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ein al-Zeitun massacre without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You can't even Arabic so how can you say that it doesn't mention "terror", So stop seeing the source from one side. Go to talk instead of edit warring Uishaki (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Cairo–Haifa train bombings 1948. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. If you remove the category again i promise that you will be blocked sooner or later. Uishaki (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases you are reverting to your version vs multiple users, were blocked already for such behavior, and were placed under 0RR sanction. The so called disruptive editing is on your side, since the edits in question are not sourced to mainstream reliable sources, are highly biased and in violation to WP:NPOV core policy, to WP:TERRORIST and others. Also, I couldn't see that you're trying to reach consensus in Talk Pages for your contentious edits.

I've seen here that you are referring to what you think is my religion and ethnicity, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia's WP:AGF fundamental principle.

Please refrain from doing so. Noon (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not neutral at all which is a big violation, refuses to talk without involving religion, ethnicity and politics, do not care on warnings i have gave you. Most administrators here are conspirators and are working for the Zionist lobby for whitening the ugly face of "Israel". Let Wikipedia be free!! Refrain from making racial questionable edits full of hate.--Uishaki (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am curious to know what you edited in this article? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.233.68 (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the Big Orange nickname for Tel Aviv? It's the best known English-language one appearing there. The others are Hebrew-language translations not used in.English. Search for Big Orange in Wikipedia and see for yourself. Monosig (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Monosig (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this request. Ben Gurion himself said he believes in God.--181.95.28.35 (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new section on the USS Liberty incident talk page concerning your reversion of my edit. Please reply there if you are interested in discussing the matter. --Mox La Push (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Noon, if I could ask you a question that does not presume to lay any blame at your feet, but Ive noticed that your activity on Wikipedia has largely been to participate in votes on pages you had never been active in before. This for example is your first ever edit to either the talk page or the article 1948 Palestinian exodus. This is your first ever edit to the article or talk page State of Palestine. This was your first edit in 6 months and your first edit to Talk:Jerusalem in over 10 years. Would you be willing to say if anybody has contacted you off-wiki to solicit your participation in these discussions? nableezy - 16:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No.

These articles are in my watchlist for many many years, as many other articles related (or unrelated) to the Israeli-Arab conflict. I'm not a frequent contributor to the English Wikipedia, as English is not my mother tongue. I add my comments whenever I see appropriate and at times I want or feel that I should do it. Is it against any Wikipedia's rule or something? Noon (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, nableezy - 23:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]