User talk:Abu ali

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Abu ali/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Isarig 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a certain degree of what the Israli's call Hutzpah for you (who have been blocked twice for your conduct) to teach me how to behave. You can revert my edits. But you can not revert reality. Abu ali 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you Abu-ali for helping me out with the Second Intifada. I'ts nice to finally have an ally on wikipedia who supports the palestinians. It frightens me sometimes how many mad pro-zionists there are at this place. However, in this case I think you made a tiny mistake. It is the Institute for Counter-Terrorism, not the Institute For Combatting Terrorism. In this case Isarig was right. However, I still think it was wrong of him to erase the section that showed the Palestinians objections.

Do you know anything about this Institute For Counter-Terrorism or about this study they did comparing the number of non-combatants killed on both sides. Isarig and I have been arguing about this for the last few days and he insists there a reputable organization. I pointed out that they were founded by a former head of Mossad, but do you know anything else about them.

If so let me know. Also lets try and stick together and maybe we can change the Pro-Israel bias at Wikipedia. annoynmous 17:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi annonymous, I must admit that I had not heard of the ICT before. I had a look at their web site and found it quite interresting. It looks like one of these Acedimic/Military research institutes/think tanks. Former generals, secret service personel and accademics get together to analyse what is going on in the Arab world and examine different strategic responses. It looks like the ICT has a more military slant than the better known Jaffe Centre for Strategic studies. But they seem to be fairly serious and their material is better researched than the crass propoganda produced by the Israeli foreign ministry, and more interresting as an aid to understanding the thinking of the Israeli military elite. They are obviously a partizan body (all their experts on Arabs are jews). So it may be well to take their version of the facts with a pinch of salt.

I liked your edits to the Ilan Pappe article. It is amazing how much our "pro-Israeli" friends hate this Israeli who refuses to swallow the official line.

Regarding the mad pro-zionists out their, remember that they are the ones who are frightened. Their speed to censor your edits shows their fear of the truth. Let them rant and rave at us. Let them expose their true character to all around. Yes there are a lot of them on Wikipedia. But if you look on the ground in the middle east, there are a lot more of us. Just don't waste too much time online. The key battle is on the streets, to open peoples minds to what is going on around them and how they can organize to do something about it. Abu ali 22:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am actually believe it or not American. I know that the stereotype is that were all clueless about anything outside of America and although I am buy no means an expert, I have become much more knowledgeable over the past few years. Seeing that your an Israelie you probably have much more first hand knowledge than I do.

I wanted to ask you, I often hear polls cited that say that the majority of Israel's citizens agree with there governments actions. Is this true or false? If so is it because there propogandized like we are here in America or is there another reason. annoynmous 23:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

right now most israelis have a prettly low view of their government. Since Hurricane Katrina and Iraq, I would imagine you could say the same about americans Abu ali 10:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Adam Keller Court Martial

Thanks for the help. As you can see, the article was finally deleted. I have taken up the issue with Majorly who did iy it, perhaps you would like to add a comment there [1].Adam Keller 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Sir james paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Polls in Hezbollah article

Perhaps an Outside Views of Hezbollah article would create a home for polls about the group? See Talk at Hezbollah [2] Abe Froman 00:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there an article on Outside views of the Republicans? Abu ali 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Folke Bernadotte

Hey, thanks for the support, much appreciated. Best, Mackan79 14:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy. Abu ali 14:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: September 2000

Abu ali, that was my mess-up, however it was based on another users. I had been confusing it with another stat I had read regarding Israeli Arabs killed during suicide-homicide bombings. Here is my problem with it now: The 12 Arabs were violent rioters who had been assaulting Jewish citizens and shops. They did in fact, initiate hostilities. Since, in general, the other incidents like the Shafram attack the victims were completely innocent, I am just wondering how it would fit in context. --Shamir1 22:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If I remmember correctly some were bystanders. They were all unarmed. One was a kid who was active in Jewish/Arab coexistence/peace groups. None were killed in the vacinity of Jewish shops. All were killed in Arab areas. They all have names and their indiviudal circumstances which can probably be found in the Or committee report. And whether you think the shooting was good or bad, the fact remains they were all shot by the Israeli police. Happy Hanuka Abu ali 22:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah article

Salam Abu Ali.

I'm very happy with meeting you in this article. I've editted it since July and I can help you with it. Also I can answer why there isn't anything about demonstrations. Please be careful. This article is very sensitive and we should try not to participate in editorial war with jews like Elizmr and Isring.--Sa.vakilian 05:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sa.vakilian, I would not use jews as a pejorative word. Some are reasonable people. Others like Isring are incapable of compromize and lash out in all directions to obliterate facts they find inconvinient. Isring is a living example of Zionism in action and gives all those he meets a real feel for what Zionism is all about. If he did not exist then we would have had to invent him:-). I will be careful when introducing stuff into the Hezbollah article as I do not know the history of the article and what compromises have been made in the past. But why is there nothing about the recent demonstrations? Abu ali 11:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood. Why do you think I used it as a pejorative word but our POV about issues are absoluletly different.

The Hezbollah article is too long(more than 90 kb). Thus we comprise to shorten it:Talk:Hezbollah#Shortening the article and moved some part of it to the other articles

Now you can find what you want in these articles:Hezbollah political activities and 2006 Lebanese Anti-Government Protest.--Sa.vakilian 14:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Vinni-Puh's linkspam

Hi/Salam/Shalom Abu Ali. I have just reported Vinni-Puh on the WP Spam since his narod.ru spamming issue has a long history. --BACbKA 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

archiving

Hi,

you moved your talk page to (User talk:Abu ali/Archive/Dec). I think you meant to move it to User talk:Abu ali/Archive/Dec. I suggest to move it there, using the "move" button.

--Aleph-4 02:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

done Abu ali 12:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Gaza beach

The 7 children killed on a Gaza beach were not killed by an Israeli shell as Palestinians reported. Investigations find that it the blast most likely occured due to an unexploded ordinance buried in the sand. You can see the statement from the IDF here and part of the analysis here. Similarly, Palestinians gunmen recently claimed that an explosion was caused by an Israeli airstrike. This has not been proven and the IDF has rejected this allegation. The explosion occured because of technical mishaps with the rockets they were trying to fire (which they do not deny). The incident, as told by the gunmen, was initially published by Al Jazeera and other news sites however, like the incident earlier in Gaza, most have corrected, revised, and/or published new articles with the present facts. --Shamir1 10:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you believe the IDF whitewash, then I have a couple of bridges to sell you. Abu ali 10:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen. For starters, you inserted the incident in the wrong section. It is already taken note of the incident. As for IDF "whitewash", it is been FAR more accurate than Palestinian sources have been. By far. For starters, the video on PA TV allegedly depicting the incident was proven to fraud. And again, just recently, Palestinian gunmen who were attempting to fire rockets (which they say they were doing) claimed that the IDF striked them. Very easily, the claim was proven false. Although they probably know that, their goal is probably to persuade other Palestinians. --Shamir1 08:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Shamir1,

Truth is the first casualty of war. When the IDF investigates itself, its findings can be predicted in advance. In the case of the Gaza beach massacre, very few people believe that the IDF was a neutral party or that the results of its "investigation" carry any weight. Id Mubarak! Abu ali 16:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you add the racism on Israel

you seem to know your stuff can you please add a balance set of comments to both racism by country and racism. I am exhausted of the censorship on this site. How can we erase racism if people deny it exist in one of the most racial tense countries in the world.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I could tell you a fair amnont. Most informed observes know about the racism inherent in the Israeli Law of return, the israel lands administration, the treatment of foreign workers, the denial of the right of family unification for Arab citizens who are married to Palestinians from the territories, the treatment of jews from Arab countries, etc... But the conspicuios absence of Israel from the list of racism by country says a great deal about the impartiality (partizan nature) of Wikipedia.Abu ali 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Great we need you to concentrate on the racism page once added there we can copy it to the other page. As you can see from Jayjigs remarks the error he believes lies in our poor editing skills. everytime we cast a net to prove racism they "try" to slip out of it. Thus the net needs to be perfect to escape any arguments. I suggest we submit the article to more people to bring in more voices.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I quote "If this world belongs to the strong with a smooth tongue who slip from justice at every turn. what does it say about "humanity""--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I did a quick google. Have a look at these: Anti-Arabism#Anti-Arabism_in_Israel, Naeim Giladi, [3], Zionism and racism It's not racism, it's just patriotism, Poll: 68% of Jews would refuse to live in same building as an Arab The scent of racism , Living as hostages of hatred and racism, [The Israel FA Fight Against Violence and Racism The Israel FA Fight Against Violence and Racism] [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], Abu ali 10:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why We cannot win

Take a look at the list of administrators and you will see why we have zero chance, wikipedia has embedded a group that will protect certain topics. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi ሀላካሕ, I am not sure what you mean by win here. I will feel that I have won when the list of racism by country is empty, not because of censorship, but because racism has been eliminated. The battles people fight on WP are in reality pretty unimportant. But if someone gets angry enough to decide to do something about the problems and injustice in the real world, then the enterprise is not a total waste of time. Abu ali 09:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Thank you for your gracious apology. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

gracious is my middle name :-) Abu ali 09:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks

Your edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naeim_Giladi&curid=7640838&diff=97554015&oldid=97397325 can be easily construed as a personal attack against any number of editors here in WIkipedia. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are also pillars of wikipedia. Thank you. -- Avi 15:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Avraham, My comments are not a personal attack on anyone, merely an explanation why a certain group is carrying out a shameful personal attacks on Naeim Giladi attempting to associate him with white supremacists and antisemits. This is part of a campaing of villification against all those who criticise Israel. (e.g. Israel Shahak, Norman Finkelstein). Your warning is an attempt to silence me and prevent me from discibing what I see on Wikipedia. It will not succeed. Abu ali 22:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see response on the article's talk page. Further, intimating that a group of editors are a "lobby" is a personal attack. Bringing undisputably undeniable data in an article is not. Please refamiliarze yourself with wikipedia policy in order to become a better editor and help contribute to the project for the benefit of us all. Thank you. -- Avi 12:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word "lobby" is not a personal attack. But if you are at all offended by the word, I will be happy to oblige and not use the word in future. On the other hand what you describe as "bringing undisputably undeniable data" is a smear campaign using Nazi sources against someone you disagree with this is a personal attack of the vilest nature. You should be ashamed of yourself. Abu ali 14:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please read the text. No opininos are stated in the text about Mr. Giladi, only cold, hard facts are brought. Uncomfortable facts are not personal attacks, sometimes the truth is uncomfortable, but wikipedia is nt censored. See Ariel Sharon and Sabra and Shatilla for examples where uncomfortable truths are brought. Your intimations of guilt and shame are neither appreciated, nor in the spirit of wikipedia's civility requirements; please endeavor to contribute to the project in the manner which we all agree to when we become members of the project. Thank you. -- Avi 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Deir al-Asad

Well, thanks, glad you liked it! Regards, Huldra 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig

Thanks for the heads up. I've put in my two cents. --Lee Hunter 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

I recently added some details to the "Examples of political, judicial and military representatives" section of Arab citizens of Israel, taking care to be neutral and encyclopaedic. I also removed a few irrelevant biographical comments (including one, a Jewish Virtual Library comment that states that Salim Jubran is "known for his tough stand on sex and drug-related crimes", which may be POV). You then reverted my changes with no explanation. What gives? Udzu 18:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You removed criticism of the appointment of the Arab ministers by Yisrael Beiteinu, as well as the ealier conviction of Salah Tarif, making the section somewhat one sided.Abu ali 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Arab citizens of Israel. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Shamir1 22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome ya Shamir Abu ali 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine

All I can do is urge you to tread carefully. The POV warriors on "the other side" are adept at using the policies of Wikipedia to their political ends. Keep very cool in dealing with them, no matter how provoked you are. Try to avoid long revert wars. If you are outnumbered, and you often will be, do not consider it a virtue to keep fighting past the point at which anyone reasonable would consider a compromise. Move on to another article. Wikipedia will not become fair on this subject overnight, if ever, so it is not worth becoming outraged over one instance or another. Grace Note 05:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Grace. On WP I am on safe territory. They can not shoot me, arrest me or demolish my home. And all of their actions are recorded. Abu ali 15:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

some people like User:Shamir1 are deleting vital info from pages such as Palestinian exodus Palestinian refugee Arab citizens of Israel need your help .7day 13:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. These people are called Zionists, and this is the sort of stuff they do. When fixing the damage that they do, avoid inflamatory edit summaries. Remember that the truth is on our side. And they are desparate people. Wouldn't you be desperate if you were outnumbered 260 million to 7 million, and if you were being led by Ehud Olmert. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you out. Good luck Abu ali 15:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes true and a glimpse of their fears can be seen here [9] [10] . 7day 08:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Disgrace

It is [here] under "Wear it as a badge of honour"

Hmm - While I dislike the tone of the quoted message (I don't mean to offend Abu ali, but he does appear to have a penchant for drama and a tendancy to claim conspiracies exist whenever there is a content dispute), at no point can I see any suggestion of violence in his message. I suspect WP:COOL may well apply here. Furthermore, without a link to where the quote came from, it is difficult to determine the context. Chovain^(t|c) 06:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Brilliance, Regarding your warning [11] I can assure you that I oppose suicide bombings. They give you people an excellent propoganda weapon. And enligtening people is far more effective than blowing them up. So though it may dissapoint you, I have no plans to blow myself up.

I see you are new to Wikipedia. But I am sure that you will find many likeminded people here who share your method of "discussion", of making baseless accusations against opponents in an attempt to smear them, and avoid dealing with their arguments. Have a look in WP:ISRAEL. One day you may succeed in your aim of getting me banned. In the meantime I wish you luck and hope that your edits will be fair and constructive. Abu ali 07:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was reading his talk page because he had made strange revisions on an article I had read. This is when I read the odd message that you wrote to him. I'd appreciate it if no more of these kind of comments were made. Brilliance 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi Brilliance, You have amnongst other things compared me to "Islamic dictators", a comparison which I find offensive. I oppose dictatorships for many reasons including my believe in the right free speach. And I will not have my freedom of speach curtailed by your threats to have me "banned forever". Good luck, and I hope that your future contributions to WP are more constructive than this one. Abu ali 10:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali, I've responded on my talk page. Chovain^(t|c) 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning over your racist remarks

The comment you left in this edit is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia, as it is likely to incite conflict. Please remember that other editors will read comments like that on talk pages, and may be offended. ^{[Culverin's original warning changed by Chovain]} Chovain^(t|c) 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a warning over your incredibly rude and disgraceful remarks you have made. Those remarks are not tolerated on wikipedia at all (WP:NOT). This is an encyclopedia not a blog, to express your horrible remarks (See WP:POLICY). IF I or any other users hear of you saying these things again I can assure you, you will be blocked indefinetly. So stop will your ahead. It is a horrible sight to see people like you trolling and pushing racist extreme POV on wikipeida, a site dedicated to goodwill and tolerance (See WP:ATTACK). Shame! Culverin? ^Talk 11:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but I oppose racism and do not make racist remarks. Exactly which edit are you complaining about? And could you explain what you mean by "people like you" and "stop will your ahead". Abu ali 11:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in my reply - Im currently on holiday so only checking in every now and then, however following this up now. Thanks for you patience  Glen  22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali, Culverin has responded on my talk page. He has offered to retract the warning if you appologise for your remarks (on your talk page). I think this is excellent resolution, as a number of users have been offended by it - the comment promotes a "us versus them" environment. I'd actually suggest going a step further than just apologising if you are willing, and striking out your the original comment that caused the problems (just put <s>...</s> tags around it. Chovain^(t|c) 00:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been falsely accused by user Brilliance of advocating suicide bombings. Brilliance contacted culverin who falsely accuses me of racism and now of antisemitism. If either of these gentlemen would be kind enough to show where in my comments (private comments to another editor) I have advocated sucide bombing, and have been racist and antisemitic, I will apologize unreservedly because I oppose terrorism racism and antisemitsm. But if Brilliance and culverin can not substantiate their allegations, they should have the honesty to admit that they are false and withdraw them. Abu ali 09:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any example of Abu ali's alleged racist remarks, and the complainant does not seem to have offered any evidence. Just what is Abu ali supposed to apologise for in order to have this warning removed? --RolandR 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left more comments on my talk page. Chovain^(t|c) 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I recently saw the warning that you gave me. You have no authorization to give me this warning. I did nothing wrong and i did not commit a "personal attack". This is a baseless warning coming from the one who commited the crime. This warning should be removed as it did not come from a neutral side. Please remove it right away. Thank you. Brilliance 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I've commented on this on Brilliance's talk page. Chovain^(t|c) 00:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for those comments Abu Ali. Incidentally, these accusations against you are completely outrageous, and I think I recognize certain stylistic elements. I'll be watching if anyone tries to do this to you again. Best, Mackan79 14:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! Take it easy... Abu ali 14:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't on your own, see my comment on Chovain's talk. I hope I didn't cause a problem. I know this puts you in a difficult position, however, where you're unable to speak openly, which sucks. In any case, I might suggest removing your comment (if this is allowed) in the interest of a resolution, since it does probably go outside the spirit of editing on WP. Best of luck, Mackan79 05:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Take it easy.... Abu ali 08:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

! Culverin? ^Talk 09:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I'd just like to update on you on where things seem to be at. There're a few last remaining releases of steam, but things are settling down. At this point, I think the most important thing is that all parties do all they can to prevent further conflict. Brilliance recently made an edit to my user page that made me nearly escalate the whole matter, but I've decided to treat it as him just letting off a bit of steam, so will forgive and forget. I urge you to do the same if you find yourself in a similar situation. An RfC is going to hurt everyone involved at this point. Let's just let it go. Chovain^(t|c) 09:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks again for intervening to help defuse this unnecessary conflict. Abu ali 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My loss of temper with this whole affair

Why are you doing this? Please leave User:brilliance out of this! You and I both know he is new (dosnt mean you should accuse him of being a sock). We were all new at one stage, and made mistakes. Will you finally start talks a resolution rather than repeating what you have said time and time again! Look, you may think your comments were fine but some (including me) fine them a breach of policy and very rude. Do you still stand by your comments or will you please just declare here, not to use that context (anti Zionism etc) Which would breach WP:CIVIL and WP:POLICY in future. I hope a resolution can finally be reached. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 09:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again Adam Keller Court Martial

It is quite infuriating, becuase somehwere in my house there IS a file with newspaper clippings from the court martial. But it was nearly 20 years ago, I have an enormous lot of boxes with all kinds of papers and without a very good system, and searching would take some months which I don't have becasue there are many other important things, personal and political, to take care of. So, I know for sure that the affair got a lot of press publicity, but how to prove it? I might make an appeal anyway, the worst which can happen is that the article remains deleted, but must think some more on what arguments to present and how. Any ideas?Adam Keller 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The key question is notability: is the court martial important enough to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia? Also have a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Abuse_of_deletion_process. I would request temporart undeletion so that you can work on proving citations. I tried a google seach and found [12]. Has the courtmartial been cited in any books not written by yourself? Good luck and let me know if I can help. Abu ali 09:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunaately, I don't know of such books. By the way, the Guardian quite was brought up in the original deleteion discussion but was disregarded, though the Guardian is a significant British newspaper. It might be releavent to mention that this Mr. yellow Up seems to have a consistent policy of hounding me and trying to get rid of whatever I write which does not fit his political opinions, he does it also in the Hebrew Wikipedia. There are some more points which I thought of. The argument of Yellow Up that "This is just one of thousands of trials against military evaders" which was rpeated by Danntm "just a simple, unimportant court-martial" is factually not true. It is very exceptional for the IDF to grant a political objector a full court martial where he can be defended by a lawyer and call witnesses (and make political speeches). It does not happen more often than once in a decade. The usual procedure is "disciplinary proceedings" where you are judged by a commaning officer in his bureau, with no lawyer or witnesses, and it lasts about five minutes - but the officer can only give a maximum of 28 days, unlike the full court martial which can give years. But the descision to have a full court martial is far from routine, it is taken on the highest levels. Then there is the fact that the act which the trial was about - a soldier writing "subversive" graffiti of 117 tanks and other military vehicles - is far from routine, it is certainly unique in Israel and I think quite exeptional for armies worldwide. And finally, Majorly jusitifed the decision to delete by stating "The vast majority were delete comments, and there seemed to be consensus to delete" [13]. Now, I took a look at the deletion log of article submitted on January 8 together with mine [14]. As far as I could see, virtually all of those which were fianlly deleted had a real ovewhelming majoroity in favor, many of them complete unanimity. The court martial artcile had nine in favor of deletion against five opposing deletion (if you don't count my own objection, with it there would be nine to six). I saw that another article which was put up for deleteion in nearly the same time Arnie_Ginsburg, the result was "no concensus, default keep". [[15]]. I have a feeling this could have been the resut also with the Court Martial article. I don't know if I should try myself to put up all these arguments, it seems like a person trying to defend his own work is discounted.Adam Keller 12:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that these are valid arguments and that you should open a deletion review. There are a couple of open minded Israelis such as User:Drork who may be able to help. More important: don't get infuriated! Put a copy of the article on one of your own web sites. Abu ali 14:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thnaks for the enocuragement. But how do you think I should relate to the existing procedure of history-only undelete? Should I open a seperate proceeding, or should I introduce these arguments in the same discussion? Obviously, if the request for history-only undelete is rejected, all the more so a request for a full undelete. (I have done quite a lot of work in Wikipedia, but I have hardly any experience of these kinds of struggle.)Adam Keller 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. A history only undeletion is a distraction. I'll do a deletion review when I get a few minutes... Abu ali 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the help. I also felt a bit uncomfortable with coming out myself as asking for undeletion. There are two more points which occured to me today and they might be useful: aside from betraying a political bias, the statment that it was "one of the trials of evaders" is just factually not true. It was not the trial of an evader, it was the trial of a soldier who punctually answered the call-up order, came to the desginated place at the designated time, put on a uniform and then went out in the night and wrote grafitti on 117 tanks and other vehicles. This is not "evasion" - it is worse by the military legal code, but it defintely in not "evasion". (It was by the way not planned in advance, it was a spontaneus reaction to a young Palestinian being electrocuted when soldiers forced him to climb a electricity pylon to take down a Palestinain flag). Second point: I did write the article, but I did not describe my own actions on these two nights in my own words. I gave the exact wording of the military prosecutor, and he did not write it to faltter me but to get me into prison for as long as he could. Anyway, thanks again for the help. Adam Keller 18:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

An honour to be of service. It looks like the article may be on the way to being relisted for deletion, which will allow the arguments (and new references) to be raised properly. Abu ali 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, looks like kind of a tough call. I wish I could offer more, unfortunately it's a bit outside my field of knowledge; seems kind of like the sources just need to come forward. Good luck, Mackan79 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkup

How have things been since I closed your case? Have a nice week and god bless. P.S, answer at my talk page please. --James, La gloria è a dio 03:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam Keller

Hello, I'm responding to the message you have left in my talk page. I had time only to go briefly over the debate in the deletion review. I don't know much about Adam Keller, but a quick search in Google (in Hebrew) shows that he is the spokesperson of the Israeli left-wing movement "Gush Shalom". As far as I understand, he was sent before a martial court in 1988 because he committed an offense against army orders when acting as a soldier. He was a reserve soldier, but on active duty, and therefore subject to martial law. Had he done the same thing as a civilian, I doubt if he had been indicted at all, and if so, he'd probably get a much easier punishment (in order to be fair, I'd say that being a WASP in Israeli terms, probably helped him when brought before a martial court, and would probably have let him off the hook had he done it as a civilian). I am not sure this case is special enough to sustain an article in its own right. It is mentioned in Refusal to serve in the Israeli military#The Adam Keller Court Martial, and it seems to be enough, considering it was not that unusual. Perhaps the background of the beginning of the first Intifada encouraged the Hebrew press back then to deal with this subject intensely, but with time perspective it doesn't seem a major event. Nevertheless, you could write an article about Adam Keller himself. Regardless of his views (about which I am not going to comment) he sounds like an interesting person. drork 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dror, Thanks for your input. Abu ali 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have answered in my page your query about the "280 court martials". Adam Keller 09:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the WP:DRV, I would be voting "overturn" if the article was not a vanity piece by the subject. I expect the DRV to endorse deletion, with no prejudice for creating a new article that is not written by Keller himself. I will be interested in helping with this, so please contact me by my talk page after the DRV is finished, and we can do that. — coelacan talk — 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would you describe it as a vanity piece? Yes, he did write about himself, but took great pains to be NPOV. Abu ali 21:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank your for your support and warning

However, Isarig was mistaken about my violation of the 3RR rule because he mistakenly listed this as a revert. Beelzebarn 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you restore my edit? You seem only to have made one reversion to the article recently. Beelzebarn 16:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Warnings from userpage

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia. If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

the link between zionism and moshe katzav shows both your stance and lack of knowledge on zionism and i suggest you refrain from such obvious bias presentation on a whole ideaological concept by attaching it to an alleged (not yet put on trial) criminal... even if it's "just" for fun purpouses on your own userpage. Jaakobou 09:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One can learn much about Zionism by studying the actions of its supporters on Wikipedia.

Jaakobou

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked.

this finger pointing is unacceptable, i suggest you let go of your anti-zionist bash tactics or that you merely move them to a website which allows such activity. Jaakobou 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that I do not agree with your categorisation of my edits of my own talk page as vandalism. Take it easy. Abu ali 15:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)