Welcome

Hello, JerryDavid89, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 03:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence at the end of first paragraph of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

Unfortunately, it interrupted the description of the resolution itself, it was unsourced and redundant to sourced material further down in the lead section, and it was becoming something of a controversy magnet... AnonMoos (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Peretz

Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. Take a look at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. As you can see, it wasn't the time to revert my edit. Please revert yourself and discuss things. Thanks. Shootbamboo (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself"... I stopped reading there. :-) JerryDavid89 (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your edit summary was inaccurate. Preserving content means you improve things. It does not mean you revert again by deleting all the content. Also, people who generate more controversy get more coverage. There's no ideal ratio that we must abide by. Shootbamboo (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi, please could you read WP:MINOR. You've marked some of your edits as minor edits when they shouldn't have been marked that way. Many editors won't see minor edits appear in their watchlist, they prefer to hide them, so they will miss your changes. It's especially important to not get this wrong in topics covered by discretionary sanctions such as the Israel-Palestine conflict area. An editor was recently topic banned for 3 months largely for marking non-minor/controversial edits as minor for example. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit/s are you talking about? JerryDavid89 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop whining about how you haven't received any explanation, when in fact you've received multiple explanations at significant length

This habit of yours is unfortunately quite annoying (not to mention rude). Furthermore, as User:Zero0000 pointed out on the article talk page, it was solely dependent on others' charitableness that you haven't already been reported for violating the middle-east related article edit-warring ban. If you continue to make a point of refusing to listen to anybody, then you may find the kindness of strangers running dry... AnonMoos (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Big font and all! JerryDavid89 (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

Please don't make personal attacks, such as the one you made at Talk:Gilad Atzmon. Continuing to do so may result in your being blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! Scary exclamation point! Interesting.... I don't think Malcolm Little was very fond of Jews either... JerryDavid89 (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding ~~an issue with which you may have been involved~~ your edits. Thank you. Shootbamboo (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a direct link to the section Wikipedia:ANI#Personal_attacks.2C_bad-faith_and_slow_edit-warring Shootbamboo (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated 1RR violations

Congratulations, you're now about to be discussed on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in five years of Wikipedia editing, you're the first person whom I've nominated for formal bureaucratic action who wasn't a transparently malicious vandal or troll, so congratulations on that as well... AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic motto

Dude, ask that question in some other place, because in the place and manner in which you asked it, it pretty much constituted pure vandalism. AnonMoos (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why, are you afraid to answer? JerryDavid89 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't your mother ever tell you that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? Why would its utter irrelevance to Arbitration enforcement, and the technical details of the way you asked the question being inappropriate mean that I'm afraid to answer the question? However, your side-excursion into nastiness doesn't necessarily make me feel more inclined to oblige you... AnonMoos (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"side-excursion into nastiness"? What's nasty about it? You've written something in Arabic, on the English-language version of Wikipedia, and I'm merely asking you to explain its meaning, as I personally can't read Arabic. What's so nasty about that? JerryDavid89 (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your quick assumption that I have something to hide (when I don't) was not calculated to elicit my cooperation. I would say that the motto adds that certain je ne sais quoi...

Anyway, you've motivated me to finally make a graphic that I've been thinking about doing for a while, so if that gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, then I'm happy for you. Share and enjoy! -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]