User talk:AndresHerutJaim

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, AndresHerutJaim, 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! The Squicks (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply

have a look at my reply under the "discussion" section of the "Nazi Germany" article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.83.248.32 (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Paladin

Hi! Are you sure about this edit? You may well be right, but I thought the 1948 Arab–Israeli War was well before the Suez Crisis. I would appreciate it if you can clarify the situation for me. Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Mount Hermon

I undid your edit. Categories are important to articles, and the ones that were on there were appropriate. FinalRapture - † ☪ 02:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at your contributions. Unless there is consensus I am asking you to stop. FinalRapture - † ☪ 02:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your edit summary, that makes sense. Sorry about that, Continue FinalRapture - † ☪ 02:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jenin

Please stop removing categories from articles without consensus. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your edit summary stating that including [[Category:Battles involving Israel]] is redundant with the inclusion of [[Category:Operation Defensive Shield]]: this is incorrect per WP:MILMOS#SPECIFIC and WP:MILMOS#NESTED, as [[Category:Operation Defensive Shield]] is not a subcategory of [[Category:Battles involving Israel]]. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irgun

Hi, could you explain this edit to Irgun? I'm concerned because I couldn't find those categories in Category:Irgun --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be mistaken, because they simply are not there... --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that edit just obscures the categories, they are supposed to make it easier for users to reach those pages, by eliminating those categories from the main article it makes it impossible for the average user to navigate to related articles--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is not the point of categories: to be in obscure places, they needs to be in the main article.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did put the Inuse template on the Israeli wars and armed conflicts for a reason...

For the moment, please let me make the additions to the "Armed conflicts involving the IDF not defined as wars" section with no additions changes from your side until I remove the inuse template - you see any changes you make while I am making my additions deletes my additions. I am glad you are interested in this topic too and hope we would be able to construct a better article together. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Irgun. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how about you find the line in the source to support your revert? When you can't, please feel free to apologize and self revert.

Military operations conducted by the Israel Defense Forces

Hi, regarding this edit, what's your source? Neither the Hebrew nor English wikipedia say anything of the sort. Poliocretes (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, training camp attack was another incident, 10 days later. See here. I've removing the addition from the article. Poliocretes (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using fair use images as icons

Hello. I note that you have wanted to place iconized versions of File:PIJ emblem.png and File:Logoprc.png onto 2004 Israel–Gaza conflict. This usage is not supported by our policy at WP:NFCC. Specifically, the usage fails WP:NFCC #1 because identifying the group is accomplished with text, therefore a textual equivalent is available. WP:NFCC #3a, because this minimal use by overusing fair use images in the article. WP:NFCC #8 significance, because with the images so iconicized it makes them virtually indiscernible at such a low resolution. Please do not restore this usage. If you think this usage should be permitted, please take the issue up at either WT:NFC or WP:NFCR. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza War

You need to explain your revert on the talk page o else it will be reverted.Cptnono (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit has been reverted. Please take any further changes for the article to the talk page first. Thank you. Bjmullan (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to know your reasoning behind adding details of Hamas' rockets into the section "Controversial tactics allegedly used by Israel". This section is for discussing controversial tactics used by Israel, there is a separate section for discussing controversial tactics used by Hamas. I propose to delete it from this section, if you think it is important you can add it to the Hamas section.

Vandalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zionism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. I invited others to discuss or correct the biased statements in the page to improve article. Notices should not be removed without discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpsmi (talk • contribs) 15:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

You need to go through all of your recent edits and sel revert any inclusions of nonfree material. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights. It looks like you have gone through multiple articles adding nonfree content and I would prefer not to have to spend the time cleaning up the error and reverting on articles that should have limited reverts being done. Please do this as soon as possible. If you do not understand the guidelines or would like to request some assistance on alernatives to removal (not sure if there is with your recent edits) please ask. If you do not do this I will probably be opening up a report and the Administrators Noticeboard for incidents since you are putting Wikipedia in legal jeopardy (probably not bad enough for anything to really happen), shedding a bad light on Wikipedia, and causeing undue burden to other editors.Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:AndresHerutJaim and images Cptnono (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is correct. You need to remove all the non-free images you have inserted into articles as icons - please do this without delay. Continuing to insert such images will result in a block. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All images from the 25th have been removed already. Thanks fo rthe cleanup on Gaza War Black Kite. Please do not reinsert them AndresHerutJaim. Let me know if you want to figure out alternatives to addin them or ideas on how to get the logos licensed correctly (the right email however doubtful might get them) and we can try other solutions.Cptnono (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That one is also not acceptable. #Using fair use images as icons this sums it up pretty well but there are lots of blue links to go through. Basically, the the logo is not considered free for us to use. If there is a copyright template on the file page (see: File:Fateh-logo.jpg#Licensing} then it should not be used. The exception is at the main article discussing Fatah since rationale for using it has been provided. A proper fair use rationale would more than likely not be accepted for other articles. Does that make any sense/ I know it is confusing to understand at first so let me know if I can clarify.Cptnono (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have again brought this up at AE. I have also reverted your edits. Apologies for calling them "vandalism" but it was the most efficient method and you have been given sufficient warning.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict

Category:1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Intifada

You have to explain your reverts. I gave a reason in the edit summary and opened a section on the talk page and you reverted without either an edit summary or making a note why. That is not acceptable. nableezy - 15:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six-Day War

I've added a new section to the Six-Day War article's talk page regarding your insertion of Lebanon as a belligerent in the Six-Day War. If you would kindly join that conversation it would be appreciated. Thanks. ← George^talk 23:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I have reported you at Arbitration Requests/Enforcement [1] for breach of the one revert rule on all articles related to the Israel/Palestine conflict at Givati Brigade. You may wish too self-revert in order to mitigate any possible sanction. RolandR (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images again

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. O Fenian (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Since you have persisted to ignore our copyright policies and continue to insert copyrighted images into articles, despite a number of warnings above on this page, I have blocked you until you indicate that you understand the problem and state that you will not repeat it. It is completely unfair to expect other editors to clean up your errors, especially when you do not use talk pages to communicate with them. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Done Per email, the user has promised not to continue inserting non-free images into articles whilst violating WP:NFCC. Any admin may reblock the user if he does not keep to this promise. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Wellington's Regiment

I have deleted your recent edits to the above article. Although involved in Bosnia as UN troops, it was not awarded a battle honour or even a theatre honour in relation to the conflict. As for the Suez conflict Operation Musketeer in 1956, well they were never even deployed to it. You will note in the text section 'Garrison Duties' they were at that time stationed in Malta, training, then flew to Cyprus undertaking action against EOKA terrorists. Their postings during that period of the 1950s were:- September 1955 - August 1956 - UK - Chiseldon, Chiseldon Camp August 1956 - November 1956 - Malta, St Pauls Bay, Billets November 1956 - September 1957 - Cyprus, Kermia Camp, with units in Famagusta, Troodos & Nicosia.

Template:Arab-Israeli conflict engagements‎

Please revert your last edit to the template, which violates 1RR. Also, please stop edit-warring and discuss your concerns on the template's Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violations of restrictions per WP:ARBPIA on the page Template:Arab-Israeli conflict engagements. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Talkback

Hello, AndresHerutJaim. You have new messages at American Jews's talk page.
Message added 00:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Category:Pre-Israel Defense Forces organizations

I deleted Category:Pre-Israel Defense Forces organizations because it was essentially a re-creation of Category:Pre-IDF military units, which has been deleted as a result of this deletion discussion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please could you read the WP:VANDAL policy and try to be careful not to label things as vandalism unless they fit the description of vandalism in the policy. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Owain the 1st Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fun timing: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AndresHerutJaim reported by User:Owain the Ist

I agree with Sean that Andres has been vandalising my perfectly good and source edits without reason.I have reported you Andres for suchOwain the 1st (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 1 week for ARBPIA violation and disruption

Your behavior of late has significantly exceeded allowable edit conflict on Wikipedia. We expect better of all editors.

You were warned above about the heightened scrutiny applied to Palestine/Israeli areas on Wikipedia. You chose to engage in this edit war, in which you removed a number of apparently well sourced items of information across a number of articles, despite that warning. You seem to have outright reverted literally everything Owain the 1st did for a while today.

You are blocked from editing for one week. Please behave better going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. O Fenian (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the sockpuppetry case, I've reset the block to a week. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should not restore incorrect editions because of my blockade. Please eliminate this wrong change. Thanks.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why or how is that version wrong? Please explain your reasoning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's right. These are violent confrontations defined by Israel as wars (by its Ministry of Defense more precisely). Operation Cast Lead is not one of them.--157.92.44.71 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International standards as to definition of "war" apply, not merely Israeli standards (said Ohiostandard)

WRONG!!

The violent confrontations which appear in this list have been defined by Israel as wars

The "Gaza War" is not considered by Israel as a war... so eliminate it out from this list!

Is my English good enough?--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the 1R rule yet again

You have broken the 1R rule on the Wars involving Israel thread.I suggest you revert it back now or I am going to report you.Owain the 1st (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irgun

Please explain your reversion at the Irgun article talk page. ← ZScarpia 00:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of War over Water for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article War over Water is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at its deletion discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New antisemitism

Do you understand what a copyright violation is? Why did you restore text that clearly is plagiarized? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of ancient conflicts in the Levant

As a contributor to the ancient history of near east, i have noticed you mixed up categories for three different ages and three different (though of course related) kingdoms - Samaritan Revolts against Byzantium (485-556) are unrelated to "Jewish-Roman Wars" (66-136), while the Jewish-Roman Wars are not part of "conflicts of ancient Israel" (unified Kingdom - 10th century BCE, Kingdom of Israel 9th century BCE - 722BCE). Pls notice before you make incorrect categories once again. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1994 AMIA bombing

Andres, I prefer to do this without a templated notice. It make sit easier to explain and I'm sure you will appreciate. Posting blog links is not allowed per WP:ELNO. You know this as it was mentioned in the edit summary, yet you reinstated the link without posting a comment and a reason. Moreover you have posted images of alleged perpetrators in violation of BLP. Per WP:PERP: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." This also applies to the images in the link you posted. Regardless of how you or I feel on this subject, the rules must be followed. Please do not revert and reinstate this link without prior discussion here or better yet, in the article's Talk page. Please be aware of avoiding edit warring and 3RR. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After this message was posted, you did not respond but restored the link instead. So I'll say it again, in not-templated form. The link is a blog. It says so in the URL. More importantly it violates WP:PERP as quoted to you. Please stop and discuss it or you may be blocked. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Andres, I wanted to be nice and explained to you in non-templated form what you are doing against the rules of Wikipedia. You ignore the warnings, and continue to violate the rules. Seems that trying to help doesn't work so I have no choice but to revert to templated - impersonal forms. Here's the block one. If you want to engage editors in discussion, you are welcome to do so here. If you prefer to violate the rules, you don't leave me any choice but to block to protect the encyclopedia. Alexf^(talk) 01:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Alexf^(talk) 01:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"in Israel" categories

Hello. You have added a number of categories of the form Category:Terrorist incidents in XXXX in Israel to a number of articles. Many of those articles concern locations outside of Israel, such as this, or this, or this. I have reverted the addition of the categories to places outside of Israel and ask that you take greater care in adding these categories. The Palestinian territories (the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip) are not "in Israel". Please do not re-add the categories to those pages. Thank you. nableezy - 18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert to the ambiguous "Mandate Palestine"

Your revert to the ambiguous Mandate Palestine. "By 1948, it was clear that Mandate Palestine didn't include Jordanian territory" Uh huh. "clear ' to who? When people come to Wikipedia they seek information. If they're seeking information, they do not know. So why be purposefully vague and ambiguous? [2] ... [3] ... [4] ... [5] ... [6] .. [7] .. how many hundreds of books would you like? News papers ? Jewish Israeli MKs? Long after 1948? [8] .. [9]... [10] ...

Mandate Palestine could include Transjordan! ... talknic (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on List of wars 2003-2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

About that you said, that I should take up your vandalism at the discussion page of the article. I see no reason for this, because this is about you as a user, not about the article. If you continue to vandalize this or other articles, you will risk to be blocked. Your edits are fully unexplained and without references. I have given sources and explained all i've written. --188.113.91.110 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation at 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

Please self-revert. Also, please observe that the text describe a often repeated myth, not a fact. So it can not be used to describe "Arab intentions during the war". --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was fast! --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Hi, do you have access to the book "How We Got Here: The 70's: The Decade That Brought You Modern Life--For Better or Worse"? If so, could you scan the relevant page and upload it temporarily, so we can see what the text says? I think that we'll need to reconcile the text a bit, since the online source says the Soviet Union spearheaded the resolution and it was passed with Arab and African support (looking at the list of countries voting in favour, it seems a bit off the mark to say that arabs would have caused the resolution to pass based on their votes, since there is a significant African component). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jiujitsuguy for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ALA

Hi,

You added the flag of the Iraqi army in the belligerents of the Civil War period in Mandatory Palestine. There were indeed Iraqi volunteers that fought during that time. They were mainly deployed at Jaffa and Haifa. Nevertheless, they were not there as Iraqi soldiers but as Iraqi volunteers serving in the Arab Liberation Army (ALA). The High Commander of the ALA was a retired Iraqi general named Safwat but he was retired as all the volunteers were not members of the Iraqi army.

If you follow your reasonning you can then also add the flag of Great Britain for all sides because a huge number of British volunteers decided not to leave Palestine with troops and stayed to fight for the side of their heart. You could also add the German flag for Arabs and the US and French flags for the Yishuv. This is written in Gelber's book too. The nosense go deeper : as far as Morocco, Algeria and Lybia are concerned, you could add these flags on both side too because Sepharad Jews and Arab volunteers came from there too...

91.180.121.170 (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo from Hebron

Hi, I really don't think it's a good photo to use: (i) Aesthetically, the photo composition is not good, the soldiers are not even the main focus; (ii) Hebron is a very politically contentious and controversial situation; (iii) the narrative, as portrayed in the photo, looks sinister or is open to a negative interpretation (iv) we already have a photo from Nablus & a photo from a checkpoint; (v)the image is used on 3 other articles.

Of course, wikipedia has to be NPOV and objective, but to use a politically contentious image of occupation in the main IDF article is not fair, since we don't use similar images from Northern Ireland on the main article for the British Army, or for the US Army, etc. If we use policing/occupation photos from Hebron, then, for NPOV, we should surely choose ones which look less aggressive or more neutral for the main article. We also have huge amounts of photos to choose from on the commons, so the space can be better used. Best Avaya1 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE

[11]--Shrike (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks (the length owing to your multiple previous blocks for similar conduct) for violation of the ARBPIA 1RR restriction on the page Golani Brigade. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

This is a notification; per this AE thread, you are topic banned from all areas falling under the Israeli-Palestinan conflict for 90 days, to start immediately after your block expires. If you have any questions regarding the scope of your ban, please ask me or request a clarification. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reset your block to expire two weeks from now because you have been evading it by logging out to edit. If you do that again, this block (and the blocks of any IPs you use) will get considerably longer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between a ban and a block is that a ban so more of a social thing, and you're expected to abide by it of your own accord, rather than a technical measure like blocking, which prevents you from editing. You are banned for 90 days from topics to do with Arab-Israeli conflict, but you won't see any message telling you that you can't edit a particular article. You have technically violated your topic ban several times, but I will chalk that up to an honest mistake if it doesn't continue. You're welcome to ask me any questions you might have, but bear in Mind I don't have the power to lift the topic ban myself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, AndresHerutJaim. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
Message added 16:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re

I'd say yes, those do fall under your ban, except for Mossad. With Mossad, you can edit anything that isn't related to the ARBPIA topic area (if you have any questions about that, I'm happy to clarify). Since you asked me, I'm not going to hold those edits over you because I think there was some gray on a couple of those articles, but make sure to keep it in mind in the future. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#AndresHerutJaim Sean.hoyland - talk 18:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Aftermath article

I didn't realise that material was already in the Aftermath article, your addition duplicated what was there. I hope you don't mind but I've removed it. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for for continually abusing multiple accounts. For further information please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 16:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (X! · talk) · @870 · 19:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AlanS (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AlanS (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

495656778774 (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Palestinian suicide attacks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Palestinian suicide attacks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian suicide attacks (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]